Planning in London 127 OCTOBER-DECEMBER 2023 ED2

Regulars

The Journal of the London Planning & Development Forum Issue 127 OCTOBER-DECEMBER 2023

www.planninginlondon.com

LEADERS page 5 FINCH page 7 MALLETT page 8 ¡PILLO! page 29 PLANNING PERFORMANCE 30 ROGERS page 51 PARKYN’S PIECES page 52

THE BROWNFIELD BONUS Mike Hood of LandSec page 15; WHERE TO BUILD NEXT AS BROWNFIELD SITES DRY UP Leader page 5; BROWNFIELD AND BIODIVERSITY Simon Ricketts page 19; LONDON'S OFFICE MARKET Tom Petryshen page 54; UNSPENT SECTION106 CONTRIBUTIONS Chris Gaunt page 58; WORLD CAR FREE DAY Gina Bugten Dinesen page 60 THE ESSENTIAL GUIDE TO DEVELOPMENT IN THE CAPITAL

Please subscribe: page 74

Thursday 2 November 2023 09:00 - 15:00 Drinks reception to follow Senate House, University of London, Malet St, London, WC1E 7HU

THE LONDON CONFERENCE 2023

Is London in crisis? Join senior business, third sector and local government leaders for this cornerstone event in London’s public policy and political calendar, taking place ahead of the 2024 Mayoral Election.

2

This is your opportunity to hear from and speak to all four leading Mayoral candidates about their campaigns and vision for London.

Register your interest here. https://tinyurl.com/yc865hhj

CONTENTS

CONTENTS

LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM from page 32

5 LEADERS Where to build next as brownfield sites dry up Pollution policies should not hinder housing delivery 7 PAUL FINCH Beauty can’t be planned 8 LEE MALLETT Not tall, but handsome – bring back the mansion block 9 Salisbury Square : A new legal quarter in the historic heart of British lawmaking,

ACTIVE TRAVEL SUMMIT, PETER MURRAY page 14

OPINIONS 14 Active Travel Summit | Peter Murray 15 Brownfield development | Mike Hood 18 Nutrient Neutrality | Lawrence Turner 19 Brownfield and biodiversity | Simon Ricketts 20 Opinion: M&S mess | Simon Ricketts 27 BRIEFING CLIPBOARD: Development Corporation for Euston, 'PM to push through "nutrient neutrality" axe’, More affordable housing could save £1.5bn a year, Skills gaps and a lack of resources, When is permission required for WFH?, First geothermal Continues borehole finished at new City of London hub, next page ‘Europe’s tallest modular building’ completed in >>> east Croydon, Let’s get Britain’s Future Back

JON TABBUSH of CENTRE FOR LONDON page 44

www.planninginlondon.com

3

CONTENTS CONTINUED

29 ¡PILLO! Hole in one for housing, Net Zero in 4,700 years, Boring buildings to blame, Does the state have to house me

BOOKS 67 Modern Buildings in London | Ian Nairn 68 London of the Future | The London Society

30 PLANNING PERFORMANCE Latest planning performance by English districts and London boroughs: planning applications in England between January to March 2023: Decisions both decided and granted continue to fall over the past year

71 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REFERENCE GUIDE

>>> LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM 34 Urban rooms – every city should have one Peter Murray founder of New London Architecture 39 The M&S decision Fred Pilbrow of Pilbrow and Partners 44 A city short of children: demographic trends affecting planning and development in London Jon Tabbush of Centre for London 48 Ideas for planning reform from BL & LandSec Mike Meadows Head of Planning and Public Affairs at The British Land Company and Tom Dobson Managing Director of Quod

74 SUBSCRIPTION ORDER FORM 75 SHAPING THE WORLD Carbon savings from Working from home: The IWG and ARUP carbon report 79 ADVICE

51 ANDREW ROGERS More awful lawful meanings 52 PARKYN’S PIECES Art for our sake – a lesson from Neil Parkyn in art and architecture FEATURES 54 London's Office Market | Tom Petryshen 58 Unspent s106 contributions | Chris Gaunt 60 World Car Free Day | Gina Bugten Dinesen 62 Land value benchmark | Andrew Golland 64 Sustainable cities | Cushman & Wakefield

Publishing Editors: Brian Waters, Paul Finch and Lee Mallett editor@planninginlondon.com, planninginlondon@mac.com ISSN 1366-9672 (PRINT) ISSN 2053-4124 (DIGITAL) Issue 127 OCTOBER-DECEMBER 2023 www.planninginlondon.com

Editorial, subscriptions and advertising: Tel: 07957871477 Email: planninginlondon@mac.com Contents ©Land Research Unit Ltd or as stated

The London Planning and Development Forum (LP&DF) The LP&DF was formed in 1980 following an all-party inquiry into the development control system.

It selects topics to debate at its quarterly meetings and these views are reported to constituent bodies and published in Planning in London.

It is a sounding board for the development of planning policy in the capital, used by both the public and private sectors.

The LPDF is administered by: Honorary Secretaries: James Mitchell RIBA jm@axiomarchitects.co.uk & Riette Oosthuizen riette.oosthuizen@hta.co.uk

Agendas and minutes are at www.planninginlondon.com To attend please email the Hon. Secretary

Member bodies Association of Consultant Architects Planning Officers’ Society/Association of London Borough Planning Officers

4

Planning in London

Chairman: Brian Waters MA DipArch (Cantab) DipTP RIBA MRTPI ACArch ppACA FRSA Principal: The Boisot Waters Cohen Partnership brianwaters1@mac.com Vice-Chairman: Jonathan Manns: JLL jon.manns@gmail.com

London of the Future - The London Society page 68

Available only on subscription: £99 pa Provides a licence for five copies by email See subscription form or buy online at www.planninginlondon.com.

Planning in London is published quarterly in association with The London Planning & Development Forum by Land Research Unit Ltd Studio Petersham, Gorshott, 181 Petersham Road TW10 7AW

Contributors write in a personal capacity. Their views are not necessarily those of The London Development & Planning Forum or of their organisations.

Correspondence and contributions are invited for consideration. The editors reserve the right to edit material and letters supplied.

London Councils British Property Federation Design Council CABE City of London Law Society Confederation for British Industry DLUHC Design for London/ Urban Design London Historic England Environment Agency Greater London Authority Home Builders Federation Landscape Architecture SE London Chambers of Commerce & Industry London Forum of Amenity Societies London Housing Federation National Planning Forum ICE, RIBA, RICS, RTPI, UDAL, TCPA

Transport for London London University (The Bartlett, UCL) University of Westminster Affiliated members: Planning Aid for London London Metropolitan University

 Made on a Mac

THE LP&DF IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE LONDON SOCIETY

LEADERS

LEADERS

Where to build next as brownfield sites dry up Development will not be of the ‘gentle density’ kind nor the kind that most people think of as being ‘London’

Planning in London has been published and edited by Brian Waters, Lee Mallett and Paul Finch since 1992

In our last issue we covered the NLA Tall Buildings Survey, noticeably absent from which were headlines about how many there actually are. The survey is on record as having discovered 236 buildings in 2014 of more than 20-storeys. Proposals seem to have peaked at 587 in 2021 and are slightly fewer at 583 in 2022. Permissions granted rose from nine in 2021 to 20 in 2022, while six proposals were refused.

The totals in 2019 and 202 were 541 and 525 respectively. It seems reasonable to conclude the lust for tall buildings has abated for now. Unsurprisingly in view of the turmoil one year on from the debacle of the mini-budget, but 583 is still a lot of tall buildings to deliver. This is not the case, however, in the City, which is humming with new proposals.

But the implication for the boroughs is that development will not be of the ‘gentle density’ kind that Robert Jenrick (remember him?) stated was the government’s preference. Nor the kind that most people think of as being ‘London’. Nor presumably the Skyline Campaign’s.

What’s to be done? Well firstly, those investors and developers pursuing tall buildings, particularly those with consents yet to start on site, are having to resolve a stiff matrix of problems. Second staircases, evaporated values and viability. While headline values have yet to ‘plunge’ to use a journalist’s cliché. Adjusted for rampant inflation they may have actually plunged 15 per cent in real terms in London.

The NLA survey also noted sustainability, embedded carbon and in-use carbon performance and ‘well-being’ characteristics (sky pools, members workspace clubs, communal gardens, fresh air, etc) as issues developers must deliver on.

Then there is the arrival of the Building Safety Act 2022, to be law by the time this is published. A new post-Grenfell regime for investors, developers, contractors and architects governing how a building is specified, delivered and certified. This should be good news for architects, planners and occupiers.

All parties are linked by a golden thread of recorded choices and decisions governing all aspects of a building. Deviate and the necessary certificate may not be forthcoming at the end of the delivery process meaning property will not be saleable or lettable. Quality and safety of tall buildings must be achieved and maintained for many decades. As it wasn’t at Grenfell.

But as we enter a pre-election party conference season there remains the iceberg of London’s housing problems, the tiny tip of which is the 66,000 homes a year target of the Mayor’s. What lies beneath is a backlog of perhaps a million or two homes that decades of political evasion has failed to produce. Tall buildings are essential to getting anywhere near those figures. We can see how radically they have changed London. That may not be as bad as the Skyline Campaign frets about.

The looming question is where to build next as brownfield sites dry up. We need to start >>> looking seriously in other places. Any suggestions? n

www.planninginlondon.com

Issue 127 October-December 2023

5

LEADERS

Pollution policies should not hinder housing delivery There are enough problems generated by legions of Nimbys without the addition of new regulatory barriers

6

Planning in London

The House of Lords, and its committees, frequently have sensible things to say about legislation proposed by the Commons, or sometimes regulations imposed by state agencies bypassing democratic scrutiny. A good example is the report of the Lords’ Built Environment Committee, ‘The impact of environmental regulations on development’, published in September.

Its thrust concerns the problems that the willy-nilly adoption of new ‘green’ rules, without proper consultation, is self-defeating and results in a failure either to meet growth targets, particularly housing, or achieve the desired results in respect of nutrient pollution in our water supplies.

Chaired by Lord (Daniel) Moylan, a veteran of London politics at both a local level – Kensington & Chelsea – and as a key advisor to the Boris Johnson mayoralty, his report is a perceptive analysis of what happens if you abandon well-tried procedures in favour of kneejerk responses to events which have little to do with London or indeed UK circumstances.

House-builders complain that tens of thousands of homes are being delayed because of unexpected new rules concerning supposed nutrient pollution of rivers and waterways as a result of new housing development. The report notes, however, that rules imposed by Defra and Natural England derive from an EU court ruling in respect of run-off from agricultural activities in the Netherlands. The implications of the ruling, from a country with extremely intensive farming methods, fed through to any activity that might increase pollution.

In a speech in the Upper House shortly before the committee’s report was published, Lord Moylan pointed out that the stock of new homes created annually in England is no more than 1 per cent of the total; that much water pollution was caused by agriculture, particularly mismanaged pig and chicken farms, and that there was no case for preventing housing already granted planning permission from proceeding on the basis of a legal ruling about farming in the Netherlands.

In the view of the committee, it should be perfectly possibly for environmental legislation to be discussed and agreed with the housebuilding sector, on the basis of timely consultation and consistency of policy. This is surely a sensible approach. There are enough problems generated by legions of Nimbys, who have been distorting thinking about the delivery of new homes, without the addition of new regulatory barriers to creating the homes we so badly need.

A final point: why is the housebuilding industry expected to deal with waste-water and its environmental implications, when we have a privatised cartel of water companies, paying out vast salaries and dividends, who could reasonably be expected to be playing an important part in this story? The silence is deafening. n

OPINION: BEAUTY CAN’T BE PLANNED | PAUL FINCH

FINCH

Beauty can’t be planned Nor can it be defined, says Paul Finch The strange death of rational planning is best illustrated by the introduction of the word ‘beauty’ into government aspiration, faux-technical guidance, and assertions/presumptions based on nothing at all. The give-away is the fact that none of this policy or guidance ever defines what ‘beauty’ actually is.

Roger Scruton, the philosopher, promoted the notion that if designs were beautiful, they would immediately win planning permission and thus ‘solve’ the shortage of housing in the UK. He was too sophisticated to believe that he (or anyone else) could provide a definition of beauty that would be susceptible to, say, cross-examination at public inquiry.

His acolytes, and panel members of the clumsily named ‘Building Better Building Beautiful Commission’, have confidently endorsed the idea that anything requiring planning permission should indeed be beautiful, without troubling themselves in respect of definition.

Resulting policies and guidance are therefore based on an abuse of language, because an absence of agreed meaning is just as bad as using language wrongly or deceptively. The National Planning Policy Framework, the cornerstone of government planning policy, now embraces the notion of beauty as a prerequisite for planning permission courtesy of the following sentence which appears in Chapter 12, ‘Achieving well-designed places’: ‘The creation of high-quality, beautiful and sustainable buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve.’

It is no longer enough to design high-quality and sustainable buildings and places. They need to be ‘beautiful’ as well. There is plenty of stuff about what constitutes quality and sustainability, but nothing in the document about how to achieve beauty. Save this: ‘Design guides and codes provide a local framework for creating beautiful and distinctive places

www.planninginlondon.com

with a consistent and high-quality standard of design.’

To which one can only say What guides? What codes? The Essex Design Guide of yesteryear? Where is the evidence that they result in beautiful places?

This is assertion and presumption writ large – a fantasy utopia generated by Whitehall apparatchiks swaying in politicians’ windy spouting of half-digested notions about aesthetics.

As with all government policies, especially those of an aspirational nature, there is small print which means it is not enough to review the primary document. The NPPF’s fundamental aspirations say nothing at all about aesthetics or beauty. But its chapter 12 needs to be considered in light of at least one other document, the National Design Guide, whose motto or subheading reads: ‘Planning practice guidance for beautiful, enduring and successful places’.

You will not be surprised to hear that this document does not define beauty either. It is an amalgam of statements of the obvious and photography which supposedly supports the textual cliches. In respect of the text, you scarcely know whether to laugh or cry.

Take this: ‘Well-designed places can last for many years.’. What about badly designed places? Can’t they last a long time too?

Another assertion, as a statement of fact rather than proposition, runs thus: ‘This National Design Guide, and the National Model Design Code and Guidance Notes for Design Codes, illustrate how well-designed places that are beautiful, healthy, greener, enduring and successful can be achieved in practice.’

How can a new government design guide guarantee any such outcome? The words ‘enduring’ and ‘successful’ suggest an insight into the future worthy of Nostradamus. You will also notice that, once again, reading the core document is not enough: there is another one to which you must refer, that is to say the one covering the preparation of design codes, which have yet to become part and parcel of the planning process, despite the claims about their

Paul Finch is programme director of the World Festival of Architecture and joint publishing editor of Planning in London

achieved effect outlined above.

The National Design Guide does make a specific reference to how we might think about beauty in relation to places: ‘Beauty in a place may range from a long view down to the detail of a building or landscape’. I wish I were making this up, but there it is.

Can the detail of a building make a place beautiful?

No it can’t. No wonder that the guidance rapidly moves on, declaring that: ‘Specific, detailed and measurable criteria for good design are most appropriately set out at the local level.’ This seems to mean that self-appointed worthies (sorry ‘community’) will be able to impose their notion of beauty in planning codes, which will bypass any form of democratic scrutiny.

But hang on a moment – according to the National Design Guide section on how to achieve ‘identity’, proposals must ‘cater for a diverse range of residents and other users’. Suppose they can’t agree?

Incidentally, the same section of the guide asserts that: ‘All design approaches and architectural styles are visually attractive when designed well.’ Visually attractive seems to mean beautiful, though alas this phrase is not defined either. Is this a defence of Brutalism?

It is a relief to be reminded of John Constable’s wise words on these matters: ‘There is nothing ugly; I never saw an ugly thing in my life: for let the form of an object be what it may – light, shade, and perspective will always make it beautiful.’

Trying to plan beauty is about as helpful as trying to impose compulsory fun. n

Issue 127 October-December 2023

7

OPINION: BRING BACK THE MANSION BLOCK | LEE MALLETT

MALLETT

Not tall, but handsome – bring back the mansion block Tall buildings arouse strenuous opposition. They are attractive, however, to those who can afford to live in ‘luxury’ towers built by developers. Local authorities no longer build them in the mistaken belief they aren’t appropriate for families, and because of historic failures from Ronan Point to Grenfell.

But if you managed to see Grenfell: in the words of survivors, by Gillian Slovo at the National Theatre this summer, you can’t have missed receiving the heart-warming impression that the broadest diversity of family set-ups can live happily in them.

One of the play’s key messages was how successful Grenfell’s diverse community was despite the unforgiveable lack of respect and care. It’s the bad management not the architectural type that is lethal. A friend went and found himself sitting next to Michael Gove. Let’s hope the message gets back to the hive.

The same public mistrust about tower blocks is absent, however, when it comes to the mansion block. If you are an aficionado, you can swot up on 27 of the finest in the Architecture Foundation’s latest publication: At Home in London: The Mansion Block, edited by architectural and urban designer Karin Templin.

A form originating and flourishing in London in two distinct eras, the late Victorian, and between the wars from 1930 on. The mansion block – a neologism that mixed nomenclature from different eras – was popular when built and remains so to judge by today’s prices.

There’s something in the name about making what was the preserve of the affluent upper classes - a mansion - becoming available in smaller instalments to other socio-economic groups. People who enthusiastically pursued more individualistic and liberated lifestyles in the apartments they offered.

In estate agent-speak, mansion blocks were ‘aspirational’.

So why don’t we build more of them if we like them so much (and lots of us don’t like towers)?

The pre-1914 bits of London everyone loves, mostly listed or in conservation areas, contain many mansion blocks and swathes of fairly high density terraced homes, while inter-war mansion blocks,

8

Planning in London

like those of St John’s Wood or Hammersmith, have their fan club. It remains one of London’s most successful typologies.

Instead we now have, NLA’s survey told us, something like 580 tall buildings in the development pipeline. That’s a lot of tall buildings. Those built have stalked out like giants through London’s suburbs, glowering over modest town centres and brownfield sites.

One of Mr Gove’s many predecessors as housing minister at DHLUC, Robert Jenrick, stated the government’s preference for ‘gentle density’. A lot of people could live much more happily with that.

But it’s not easy to deliver. The hunt for viability to pay affordable housing development tax means developers pump up the volume way beyond ‘gentle’.

If we wanted to revive mansion blocks we’d have to artificially recreate some of the circumstances that brought them about. Up to the early Victorian era London was low rise. But rapid population growth as industrialisation and profits of empire bloomed, generated demand for rapid central densification. Developers, a new breed, found themselves able to assemble sites of lower rise properties and build speculative mansion blocks, assisted by wealthy investors and a sophisticated financial sector with whom they shared profits.

The process may have had its complexities but the only ‘planning’ rules were covenants imposed on the land underneath by previous private owners, often in previous centuries. These might be restrictive or positive covenants where owners sought to impose early forms of design codes on purchasers.

Restrictive covenants (thou shalt not) run with the land, positive covenants (you must do X) do not, unless a new contract is made between the landowner and the new purchaser. This is to oversimplify, but Victorian and Edwardian developers were able to build much more densely in a relatively planning-free city – which we and the rest of the world now revere.

The problem with trying to achieve ‘gentle density’ today in areas where it might be desirable under our planning regime is that to mention increased density in any established two or three storey neighbourhood will immediately cause a

Lee Mallett is a founder editor/publisher of PiL and urban regeneration consultant/writer

political conflagration.

London’s need for homes has to be crammed onto brownfield sites at alien densities because existing neighbourhoods are sacrosanct. And the squeezed development equation forces out the quality of design and materiality which favoured earlier mansion blocks – but which people want and pay for. There are plenty of depressed low rise areas, poorly planned, poor in quality, condition, appearance and utility, where a defined policy to gently increase density in a limited area might bring about attractive renewal. Not that different from what many local authorities are doing with their post-war council estate renewals.

If existing owners could see profit in selling their low-density homes with underused long gardens, and developers felt confident about the certainty of being able to build, that might attract capital for redevelopment. Mansion blocks might offer sufficient density to pay for that renewal and reintroduce a housing form that offered greater choice and quality and accommodated more people, bringing vibrancy and greater economic activity.

We need to have a conversation about finding opportunities for ‘gentle density development areas’. It is also worth noting that Conservative think tank, the Centre for Policy Studies, hosted a fringe event at the Tory party conference which debated the premise that Green Belt policy needs reforming. Another former housing minister, Brandon Lewis MP, felt this was hugely important: ‘There are parts of the Green Belt that are not green. There are areas that most of us would think are brownfield….the Green Belt, like everything over the last hundred years roughly, needs to be reviewed and changed.”

Why not see if suburban reinvented mansion blocks might fit the bill? n

SALISBURY SQUARE | LEE HIGSON OF ERIC PARRY ARCHITECTS

A new legal quarter in the historic heart of British lawmaking Lee Higson makes the case for building a new civic quarter in the City

Lee Higson is a director with Eric Parry Architects

The City of London invites a unique investigation of what it means to be “civic” in the 21st Century. This single square mile of space, with its Roman origins, medieval street plan and historic institutions is also a global financial capital and an engine for British business.

Geographical constraint, coupled with the conflicting pressures that come with heritage on one hand and a pressing need to keep ahead of international trends on the other, makes for a place where civic oversight is vital to success. There is no exurban solution or expansion possible for a local authority area hemmed in by dense central boroughs, and the result is intensive focus on what makes a city viable and attractive at all levels, from regulation and services to the urban realm and amenity. With nowhere else to go, the City has to adapt and constantly rebalance its offer to maintain its status on the world stage.

In recent years the City of London Corporation has made waves with its Culture Mile and Destination City initiatives, which since 2017 have built upon the existing institutions at The Barbican Centre and the renewal of the Museum of London at Smithfield to create a cultural offer as an attractive force that drives the broader prosperity of the Square Mile.

An ambitious project is now taking place to recognise the city’s role as an international centre for legal services. The Salisbury Square Development on Fleet Street, designed by Eric Parry Architects, will consolidate the City Corporation’s law courts, a flagship facility for Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service and City of London police headquarters onto a single site, creating a new centre of gravity for the legal services sector in a district steeped in the history and development of British law since the signing of Magna Carta.

The British legal system, internationally regarded as independent, clear, fair and predictable, is one of the most attractive jurisdictions available to international business and has its roots in institutions that grew up around the City of London. Salisbury Square sits at the geographic centre of an institutional, professional and educational cluster that includes the Central Criminal Court at the Old Bailey, The Royal Courts of Justice, The Rolls Building, the Inns of Court, Kings College London and the London School of Economics.

Fleet Street as we know it – as a place synonymous with the newspaper industry – came about because the legal profession’s paperwork gave rise to a healthy printing industry. Access to gossip from loose-lipped lawyers, and the means to print it, then attracted “the press”. There’s a deep resonance attached to returning this site back to the legal profession, following the decline of Fleet Street as the home of journalism.

The City is also a place where the law of the future comes into

www.planninginlondon.com

Salisbury Square Development View of St Bride’s along reinstated passageway

being. The City of London Police force, alongside its constabulary duties in the square mile, is the national lead force for investigating complex fraud and cybercrime, and the new City of London Law Courts building has been designed to facilitate the presentation of these complex cases, which in their turn will set precedents for use throughout the UK. The Salisbury Square Development will create three new buildings: • The City of London Law Courts, with a 73-metre frontage onto Fleet Street that will bring together the Civil Court, Mayor’s and City of London Court and City of London Magistrates’ Court, along with eight Crown Court hearing rooms.

• A new headquarters for the City of London Police with its main entrance on Salisbury Square • An eight-storey commercial office building with a rooftop terrace with views along Whitefriars Street to the Thames.

• A refurbished listed building to become a Public House.

The height of the buildings was set by the historic townscape and protected view of St Brides from Waterloo Bridge and their arrangement as three separate buildings comes from a desire to repair the damage caused to the medieval street plan by postwar >>>

Issue 127 October-December 2023

9

>>>

SALISBURY SQUARE | LEE HIGSON OF ERIC PARRY ARCHITECTS

RIGHT: Salisbury Square Looking south west - Drawing by Eric Parry

BELOW: City courts East Elevation Salisbury Square

10

Planning in London

reconstruction. Fleetbank House, which has been cleared for this redevelopment, imposed its bulk across the site, creating a barrier for pedestrians and destroying the network of alleyways that

characterise this neighbourhood south of Fleet Street.

The new proposal restores a network of pedestrian routes through the site and will include a new passageway aligned with the former Hanging Sword Alley. Running between the Courts and Police station, the passageway provides a new vista of the spire of Sir Cristopher Wren’s church of St Brides and accents one of Fleets Street’s finest architectural features. Salisbury Square itself will be enlarged and refocused as a public space, with a new public house established in the listed buildings at 2-7 Salisbury Square, to create a place where the life of the courts and offices can mingle and spill onto the landscaped square.

The Fleet Street façade of the City of London Law Courts negotiates the challenge of delivering a large-scale public building within the historic setting of Fleet Steet, with its character of vertical emphasis and fine-grain variations of scale and style. The granite base and limestone façade is inflected by a series of facets and bays that break up the mass of the building when viewed obliquely along the street, whilst allowing a unified façade that communicates the gravitas of the institution within.

Security concerns preclude the installation of active frontage and street-level glazing, so a new public art commission, to be announced towards the beginning of 2024, will animate the facades at the lower level.

Sustainability, combined with the City of London Corporation’s role as the long-term freeholder of the site, has resulted in a 125-year design life across the courts and police

headquarters, with all buildings designed for net-zero carbon operation.

Delivering a development of this volume and complexity on a constrained city-centre site is not easy – it requires finely a balanced solution to heritage, townscape, public life and security that in crude terms of capital expenditure make it more costly per square foot than building on an empty site.

Comparison might be drawn with Paris, where Renzo Piano Building Workshop’s 2017 Tribunal de Paris relocates the city’s law courts from their historic home in the Ile de la Cite, to a brownfield site on former railway lands on the Boulevard Periphique.

RPBW’s admirable building is programmatically excellent, but despite its achievements, it suffers from its dislocation from the civic centre of Paris and the delicate ecosystem of barristers’ chambers, legal institutions, law firms and courtrooms that has developed there over centuries. This closeness to the legal sector that is missing there, is essentially what Salisbury Square will offer in its home in the heart of the city.

The European city evolved as a dense agglomeration of goods, services and entertainment – the best means of getting the most to the masses. Samuel Johnson, who famously said that “when a man is tired of London, he is tired of life; for there is in London all

www.planninginlondon.com

that life can afford” lived less than 100 metres from Salisbury Square. While there are very strong arguments for polycentrism, a well-connected central core – the hub of hub-and-spoke transport networks – remains the best, most egalitarian, location for a building intended to serve a broad cross-section of society.

While it may be more challenging to build in the historic centre, the additional work is repaid many times over when it is considered as city infrastructure to facilitate its citizens to play out civic life. The Salisbury Square Development is a long-sighted investment in the culture of the of City London’s legal services sector that will help to maintain its global pre-eminence in rapidly changing times.

The UK’s wider network of crown, civil, criminal and magistrates courts is likely to need considerable rebuilding work in coming years. Much can be done to increase the capacity and efficiency of courtrooms and enable the swift service of justice.

We would argue that any renewal of the courts estate should take into account the benefits that come from the concentration of transport connections in city centres, from heritage and history, and from the rebuilding of the social contract that comes from integrating the institutions of the law with the wider life of the city. n

ABOVE: Salisbury Square Development Fleet St looking east

Issue 127 October-December 2023

>>>

11

SALISBURY SQUARE | LEE HIGSON OF ERIC PARRY ARCHITECTS

ABOVE: Salisbury Square Development Whitefriars St RIGHT: Fleet St looking west

12

Planning in London

ABOVE: Salisbury Square Looking south west - Drawing by Eric Parry RIGHT: View from Salisbury Court to North.

www.planninginlondon.com

Issue 127 October-December 2023

13

ACTIVE TRAVEL SUMMIT | PETER MURRAY

A tangible sense of concern In spite of the Prime Minister’s claims of a war on motorists, London’s roads are changing for the better, says Peter Murray For the last decade, NLA's Active Travel Summits have exhibited a feeling of optimism that London’s roads were changing for the better. In the past, NLA supported Mayor Johnson’s Mini Holland programmes. We liked the idea of a walking and cycling commissioner as part of the Good Growth agenda and cheered when Will Norman took on that post on the election of Sadiq Khan.

High points in the Summits' programmes came with the Government's Gear Change and Active Travel Fund in 2020 to facilitate the rapid implementation of LTNs during the pandemic. Then, in 2022, the setting up of Active Travel England.

So far so good. But a sense of concern was tangible at this year’s event in the aftermath of the Uxbridge by-election when the Prime Minister confirmed he had ordered a review into LTNs in England, saying he wanted to support people to “use their cars to do all the things that matter to them. I just want to make sure people know that I’m on their side in supporting them to use their cars to do all the things that matter to them.”

Although Labour condemned the comments as "pure hypocrisy" for accelerating and funding LTNs before "denouncing" the policy, Keir Starmer seemed to blame ULEZ for the Tory win and urged Khan to "reflect" on the expansion. "We've got to look at the result. The mayor needs to reflect. And it's too early to say what should happen next."

Even Leo Murray of the climate action group Possible was in a sombre mood when he spoke to the Summit. He had proposed a fleet of lightweight autonomous electric shuttles to ferry people across Hammersmith Bridge, currently closed for repairs.

Leo’s solution would cost less than £10m, a twentieth of the cost of repairs, which are likely to take up to a decade to complete.

But Murray’s plans were recently kiboshed by Hammersmith Leader Steve Cowan when he refused to support a grant application for further research into the proposal.

During question time, there was expected criticism from a local councillor in the audience of electric hire bikes and poor parking by users. Alice Pleasant, Lime’s public affairs manager, lived up to her name, providing a polite but robust defence of the bikes’ problems while announcing that improve-

14

ments to security were on their way to reduce the number of stolen bikes (recognisable by the clicking sound they make as they race by).

Perhaps the most positive part of the Summit was the presentation by Bruce McVean of the City of London on progress at Bank Junction, where wider paveLeo Murray proposed a fleet of lightweight autonomous ments have improved condielectric shuttles to ferry people across Hammersmith Bridge tions for pedestrians, and better-designed junctions have made cycling safer. All PBOT’s (Portland Bureau of Transportation) infrasthis in the face of robust criticism from the taxi tructure investments, overwhelming their educationlobby. al campaigns, scaring away bike riders, and lowering But such is the cut and trust of the politics that the standards for behaviour on our streets.” surround the radical changes that need to take place But it’s not all bad in London, as I said to the delein our streets to make them healthier and more sus- gates at the end of the Summit: go out and see the tainable. I remember speaking to Mia Birk, who led improvements to Bank Junction, go up to Aldwych Portland, Oregon’s bicycle revolution in the 1990s. and see the fantastic pedestrianisation scheme and Mia said that progress sometimes faltered with polit- on down the Strand to Trafalgar Square, redesigned ical changes but then got back on track. Right now, 20 years ago. It started a revolution of creating places Portland is going through a bad patch; as blogger for people, a change which will not be stopped, even Johnathan Maus writes, "Right now our traffic culture if every now and then, weak politicians take backis so toxic and dysfunctional that it's erasing all of ward steps. n Four years ago The Standard reported Planning in London’s winning scheme by marine engineer Tim Beckett.

“A temporary crossing that could be built in three months is being considered to ease the problems caused by the closure of Hammersmith bridge.

London Mayor Sadig Khan said the £5 million proposal - which could be started early next year - will be studied by Transport for London engineers facing a £120 million bill to reopen the Victorian bridge to vehicles.”

OPINION: BROWNFIELD DEVELOPMENT | MIKE HOOD

The brownfield bonus Creating the right conditions for the redevelopment of brownfield urban sites has enormous potential, says Mike Hood At the heart of great property development has to be inclusive growth. This should be the principle that guides all of us as we plan even the smallest intervention in our towns and cities.

How are we creating the conditions in which people and their communities can thrive sustainably?

The greatest opportunity we have to do this is to re-purpose land that already has a track record – when one use ceases to deliver, we have to create another. In the mission to improve our great towns and cities, brownfield land in urban areas is our greatest asset.

Our own research, conducted by Development Economics, has found that where housing densities are increased in line with the government’s proposed uplift in housing targets, it would be possible to deliver over 1.3 million new homes on brownfield land in the UK, with 385,000 of them in London. Our capital is a living case study of how urban brownfield development can be truly transformative – just look at the regeneration of Stratford, driven by the Olympic Park redevelopment, and the rejuvenation of King’s Cross into a hugely popular mixed-use commercial, retail, leisure and residential destination.

The formula is relatively simple. Clear planning policy, rooted in a deep understanding of the community and consistently applied provides the basis on which sound investment decisions can be made

www.planninginlondon.com

by those with an appetite to risk their capital.

But there is a problem here. Our planning system is currently a huge block on delivering these kinds of projects. It’s both overburdensome and overburdened. We need to find ways of unblocking it. Innovative programmes like Public Practice and the Government’s recent announcement of a Planning Skills Delivery Fund to increase the number and quality of planning officers in local authorities across the country will help.

Where the system is functioning effectively, with good co-ordination between local and regional leadership, even more could be done with subregional frameworks, local delivery partnerships and locally-led development corporations (as in the Olympic Park).

Where there is not a well-functioning local framework of governance with vision and bravery to unlock opportunities for all then we should be considering greater intervention from government to accelerate opportunities through our existing support networks like Homes England, all supported by a better-defined brownfield-first approach in the NPPF. There is no shortage of institutional capital in the market looking for the opportunities that brownfield development offers - capital that is quite prepared to take well-managed risk. But it’s become all too common for capital providers to see too much risk in large brownfield regeneration schemes, looking to the public sector to invest upfront in infrastructure funding as a pre-condition to development. But, of course, there’s only so much public money to go around.

Whilst there will always be a role for public funding or guarantees to enable brownfield development, we should not be relying on these to solve all our problems. Rather we should be looking at ways in which we can create the circumstances where institutional capital can invest from inception. Could we lower risk by making planning more predictable and providing incentives for long term ownership commitment through the taxation system? Could we create a process where the ability to pay for community benefits in a scheme could be stretched over a longer term and not linked to implementation of planning?

Mike Hood is CEO of Landsec’s urban, mixed-use regeneration arm

The best kind of capital is that which looks to the long term – great places don’t happen overnight. Investors who understand that long term partnership creates truly sustainable value will share in the benefits.

The only way we can create a step change in the system is to work together as an industry.

Recently we joined forces with British Land to publish a paper on how we can change the planning system to help make brownfield urban regeneration more successful. We came up with a number of practical recommendations for policymakers low-hanging fruit that can be delivered quickly and without significant taxpayer funding.

First, we think that brownfield urban regeneration should be defined as its own category in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). At the moment, all previously developed land is lumped in under one definition and treated the same regardless of how suitable it is for development.

This approach fails to take into account that some forms of brownfield development are inherently more complex than others – particularly those sites, like our own at Mayfield in Manchester, that have strong existing connections with local transport infrastructure and are consequently best placed to house new communities and deliver economic growth.

Introducing the new definition for brownfield urban regeneration will help unlock the potential of these sites. Government and local authorities will be able to focus on brownfield urban sites specifically and exclude more contentious sites that aren’t connected to urban infrastructure.

We are currently re-developing the O2 Centre on Finchley Road in the London Borough of Camden. A great location, but the space is currently poorly used: there is an ageing shopping centre at

Issue 127 October-December 2023

15

>>>

OPINION: BROWNFIELD DEVELOPMENT | MIKE HOOD

risk of decline and a huge car park next to it. Our masterplan will transform the centre and its surrounding land into a new and inclusive place that works better for the community, delivering 1,800 new homes (35% affordable), two new public parks and 180,000 sq ft of new commercial space.

The site is surrounded by no fewer than five rail/underground stations and has plenty of local bus stops, meaning that all the transport infrastructure will continue to operate within capacity, even with a large addition of residents and workers.

To make all this work better, we need to develop richer partnerships with the communities where we’re building. In Camden, we’ve done a great deal of consultation and the feedback we got meant we could deliver a scheme that directly responds to the priorities of the people who live and work there.

Sometimes, though, the current planning system gets in the way. Its complexity deters people from engaging in the process. Here, everyone loses. It undermines the mutual trust that is needed to shape successful places that are supported and championed by local people. We think a fast-track planning system to prioritise applications where developers commit to and deliver a properly inclusive programme of community consultation could help.

If we work together, we can deliver a virtuous circle. Long-term investment from companies like ours delivers value for everyone, makes good on promises to communities and builds trust. This means lower risk with community support and strong partnerships based on trust, which in turn encourages further long-term low risk capital investment. We have seen this happen before in places where we have built. In many other towns and cities, we can see the opposite - low trust, high risk, no institutional investment - no inclusive growth.

Creating the right conditions for the redevelopment of brownfield urban sites has enormous potential to deliver places that are successful for those who live and work in them, and for our shareholders who risk their capital to fund them.

When we make good places, everyone wins.

You can read the full report More growth, more homes, more jobs. here: https://tinyurl.com/37wjrtpc n

16

Planning in London

Appendix - Investigating the opportunity of brownfield urban regeneration In 2019, U+I (now part of Landsec) commissioned Development Economics to research the ability of brownfield land in urban areas to accommodate housing and jobs growth. The study examined the brownfield land register in a number of urban areas to estimate its ability to accommodate housing and employment land need. The conservative assumptions based on 2019 figures are captured in the data tables below.

Table 1: Housing accommodated on previously developed land, 2017-2030 Area

PDL developed for Housing (Ha)

Publicly owned Housing units PDL developed developed on for housing PDL (‘000s) (Ha)

Housing units developed on publicly owned PDL (‘000s)

Proportion of 2017-2030 housing requirement met on PDL land (%)

Greater London

3,083

1,047

197.8

70.6

25.3%

Proportion of 2017-2030 housing requirement met on publicly owned PDL land (%) 9.0%

Greater Manchester

1,615

638

54.2

21.4

28.2%

11.1%

West Midlands CA

1,786

574

63.8

21.1

40.5%

13.4%

Cambridge

77

36

4.1

1.9

96.3%

45.3%

Source: Development Economics estimates

Table 2: Additional employment land required in selected areas, 2017-2030 Area

B1 Land for offices (ha)

B2 Land for industry (ha)

B8 Land for logistics (ha)

Overall employment land required (ha)

Average land required p.a. (ha)

London

94

68

244

411

29.4

Greater Manchester

37

66

128

231

16.5

West Midlands CA

23

66

61

149

10.6

Cambridge

3

1

2

6

0.4

6. Create better incentives to unlock urban regeneration The potential benefits of brownfield urban regeneration are significant, but we need to face the reality of what it costs to deliver these schemes, if we are to unlock them and deliver the economic growth and public benefits local authorities expect.

Recommendation: •

Creating tax incentives to invest in urban regeneration, modelled on Capital Allowances. The recent Budget confirmed tax incentives for investment in plant and machinery, as it is understood to drive growth. A similar model could be adopted for investment in local infrastructure and remediation of contaminated land to catalyse urban regeneration. This would make urban regeneration schemes more viable and maximise the potential benefits that can be realised for local authorities and communities.

ABOVE: A page from the report BELOW: Case study from the report

Canada Water Dock >>>

www.planninginlondon.com

Issue 127 October-December 2023

17

OPINION: NUTRIENT NEUTRALITY | LAWRENCE TURNER

Unresolved status of nutrient neutrality The unresolved status of nutrient neutrality calls for urgent attention from policymakers and a swift resolution, says Lawrence Turner The issue of nutrient neutrality has become a significant hurdle in the planning system, a problem which is generated primarily by agricultural processes and the regulation of water companies.

While new housing development accounts for less than one per cent of the problem, it has been burdened with the responsibility to address this issue.

The imposed requirements for mitigation phosphates and nitrates have hindered the granting of planning permission, leading to a shortage in housing supply.

This issue has also become highly political. The Government sells the solution as the removal of another EU-era rule and the continuation of Brexit; while environmental objectors conflate the issue, compounded by the public scrutiny that water companies are facing for their pollution practices. In this article, we will delve into the repercussions of the nutrient neutrality problem for the development industry and the unanswered questions surrounding its resolution.

It all began four years ago, when Natural England sent letters to several local planning authorities, stating that housing developments could not proceed if they did not implement mitigation for water neutrality. This requirement has caused numerous applications for housing development to become “stuck” in the system, leading to an estimated backlog of 150,000 homes. The industry has lobbied the Government for a resolution and sought to identify

18

Planning in London

practical solutions to the issue. Initially, this led to the introduction of nutrient credit schemes, whereby local authorities would identify and purchase land for mitigation for the planting of wetlands and sell “mitigation credits” to developers. What we found, was that this took local authorities a very long time to set up, and the few credit schemes that were running only provided a limited number of credits for sale.

In short this was not a success. Eventually, the Government rightly concluded that legislation was needed to remove the planning system from the problem – it is, after all, the responsibility of the water industry to regulate. This resulted in the proposed amendments to the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill (LURB) in August 2023. However, while it was assumed these amendments would be supported, they were voted down by Labour peers in the House of Lords, leaving the Government out of time to resolve the issue before the next election.

There is a possibility that a new Bill addressing nutrient neutrality may be introduced during the King's speech on 7 November; however, there has not been an update from Government on this.

Nonetheless, the limited time frame before the next general election may hinder the passing of any new Bill and subsequent enactment of secondary legislation. It also remains unclear how the Labour party would approach this problem if they were to form the next UK government, adding further uncertainty to the scenario.

Lawrence Turner is a director of Boyer (Bristol)

As it stands, no progress has been made, and the 150,000 homes stuck in planning limbo continue to linger. The cost of implementing mitigation measures is financially burdensome for developers, leading to further hesitancy in committing to these measures.

Local planning authorities continue to require expensive mitigation which exacerbates the delay in housing delivery.

Furthermore, the uncertainty surrounding the potential scrapping of mitigation measures creates an unfavourable environment for developers.

Moreover, the dilapidating trust in the system may only fall further if developers who have already paid for phosphate mitigation face the possibility of its elimination through subsequent legislation.

Unfortunately, the resolution of the nutrient neutrality problem may not occur until 2030 when the LURB imposes a new duty on water companies to upgrade wastewater treatment areas. In the meantime, the backlog of housing sites has meant that local authorities are finding it increasingly difficult to identify a short-term housing land supply, with many delivering less than the required five years. This prolonged timeline only exacerbates the housing crisis and our reliance on an appeal-based, rather than a plan-led system.

The nutrient neutrality issue has caused significant setbacks in the planning system, particularly concerning new housing development. The burden placed on developers to address this problem has impeded housing delivery. The recent rejection of amendments to the LURB has left us at square one, with no immediate solution in sight. The unresolved status of nutrient neutrality calls for urgent attention from policymakers and a swift resolution to ensure a consistent supply of affordable housing for the future. n

OPINION: BROWNFIELD AND BIODIVERSITY | SIMON RICKETTS

BNG: One step closer, two months back

>>

Simon Ricketts says the Government should ensure that remediating brownfield sites is not disincentivised by biodiversity net gain requirements.

Hey you, don’t watch that, watch this. If it hadn’t been for the pesky BBC piece at the beginning of the day, the Government’s press statement Biodiversity Net Gain moves step closer with timetable set out (27 September 2023) would have been a terrific piece of spin.

The statement announced much awaited progress on the nuts and berries of biodiversity net gain (see eg my 2 October 2021 blog post Ecology

By Numbers: Biodiversity Net Gain In The Environment Bill (and further back my 30 March 2019 blog post Biodiversity Net Gain: A Ladybird Guide).

How precisely will the complex regime introduced by the Environment Act 2021 be implemented in practice? There was good news in the statement: “By the end of November, we will publish all guidance and the regulations including: • the statutory biodiversity metric, critical for calculating the correct biodiversity gain • the draft biodiversity gain plan template, which will help developers prepare for what they will need to complete during the planning application stages • the Habitat Management and Monitoring Plan template, which will set out how the improved significant on-site and off-site habitats will be managed for the long term • a package of Biodiversity Net Gain guidance that sets out further advice for landowners, developers, and Local Planning Authorities around their role and responsibilities in delivering mandatory Biodiversity Net Gain These materials will ensure that developers and planning authorities have access to the necessary tools and information to effectively implement Biodiversity Net Gain in January 2024, ensuring they deliver the homes that the country needs while benefitting nature and local environments.”

The awkward bit? We weren’t just expecting the guidance and regulations, all much delayed, but November 2023 was to be when the regime was actually to be implemented! Whoops.

BNG for small sites had already been pushed back to April 2024 and BNG for nationally strategic infrastructure projects was always going to be later, but since 2019 DEFRA’s position has been that the BNG

www.planninginlondon.com

regime would come into effect two years after the Act received Royal Assent (9 November 2021).

Whoops again.

Of course the work is difficult – it’s a forbiddingly complex regime, quantifying biodiversity numerically and effectively creating a state-backed credits-trading system. But we all knew that – and said as much during the passage of the Bill. Back in my 2021 blog post I naively hoped that the delays in the Bill would allow progress to be made on much of this as the Bill progressed. What have the array of ministers that we have had in DEFRA and DLUHC since 2019 actually been doing?

It isn’t just the Government that needs more time to complete its homework. The system relies on local government knowing what it is meant to be doing and being sufficiently resourced to cope with its new responsibilities. Earlier in the month, the RTPI was raising concerns on behalf of its members, RTPI publishes worrying new data ahead of Biodiversity Net Gain implementation deadline (7 September 2023): A “survey of our RTPI members found that: 61 per cent of public sector planners cannot confirm they’ll have dedicated BNG resource and ecological expertise in-house in place by November.

79 per cent of public sector planners believe that BNG practice would be improved with confirmation of additional ‘skills and staff’ 78 per cent of public sector planners believe that BNG practice would be improved with additional ‘guidance, advice and support’ 54 per cent of planners across the public and private sector believe that BNG practice would be improved by giving ‘case studies of best practice’” Let’s hope they are in a better position by January.

In another part of the forest, concerns as potential unintended consequences of the BNG regime were raised by the House of Lords Built Environment Committee in its 21 September 2023 report The impact of environmental regulations on development: “Biodiversity net gain 178. Liz Hart told the committee that the biodiversity net gain (BNG) requirement is “putting developers off brownfield sites”. Remediation of a brown-

Simon Ricketts is a partner with Town Legal LLP From Simon’s blog at simonicity.com/author/simonicity/ Personal views, et cetera

field site, such as removing contaminated soil, can have a negative impact on biodiversity irrespective of any benefits from the removal of contaminants. If the same BNG metric applies to greenfield and brownfield sites, there is no incentive to fund remediation: a developer risks making a substantial financial outlay to remediate a site only to result in potentially significant negative BNG with further investment then being required on mitigation. We heard that the development of brownfield sites may depend on larger developers building on greenfield land to create a surplus of BNG credits.

179. The Minister for Natural Environment and Land Use agreed that where remediation involved removing contaminated soil that was beneficial to wildlife it would have a negative impact on BNG. However, she suggested many brownfield sites have low biodiversity value or will be below the de minimis threshold. The Wildlife Trust disagreed, suggesting this is often “far from reality” with brownfield sites commonly being successional habitats, home to a variety of rare species.

180. Brownfield development is a key government policy supported by the public and vital to delivering homes. The Government should ensure that remediating brownfield sites is not disincentivised by biodiversity net gain requirements. Local planning authorities should be able to moderate biodiversity net gain requirements for sites on their brownfield registers.”

I have a sense that implementation of this regime is only going to be the start.

In the meantime, even this relatively short two months’ delay (assuming the latest commitment is met) sends another really poor signal as to (1) this Government’s ability to deliver on its promises and (2) as to the lack of priority that it would appear to be giving to the environment. n >>>

Issue 127 October-December 2023

19

OPINION: M&S MESS | SIMON RICKETTS

M&S mess Simon Ricketts evaluates the Secretary of State’s decision on M&S Oxford Street last July.

Read also the recent discussion with Fred Pilbrow the architect at the London Planning & Development Forum >>> I never thought I would live to see a chief executive of Marks and Spencer plc (Marks and Spencer plc!) issue a statement such as this: “After a two-year process where our proposals were supported at every stage, our investment in 2,000 jobs, building one of the most sustainable buildings in London, improving the public realm and creating a flagship store, is now effectively in the deep freeze. Today the Secretary of State has ignored his appointed expert David Nicholson who recommended approval of our scheme.

When 42 of the 269 shops on what should be our nation’s premier shopping street sit vacant, disregarding the expert opinion and approval of the appointed planning inspector and playing to the gallery by kiboshing the only retail-led regeneration proposal is a short-sighted act of self-sabotage by the Secretary of State and its effects will be felt far beyond M&S and the West End. It is particularly galling given there are currently 17 approved and proceeding demolitions in Westminster and four on Oxford Street alone, making it unfathomable why M&S’s proposal to redevelop an aged and labyrinthian site that has been twice denied listed status has been singled out for refusal.

The suggestion the decision is on the grounds of sustainability is nonsensical. With retrofit not an option – despite us reviewing sixteen different options – our proposed building would have ranked in the top 1% of the entire city’s most sustainable buildings. It would have used less than a quarter of the energy of the existing structure, reduced water consumption by over half, and delivered a carbon payback within 11 years of construction. It is also completely at odds with the inquiry process where the analysis on sustainability, including from independent experts Arup, was accepted.

We cannot let Oxford Street be the victim of politics and a wilful disregard of the facts. At a time when vacancy rates on what should be the nation’s premier shopping street are 13% higher than the average UK high street and Westminster Council is pleading for help in managing the growing proliferation of sweet shop racketeers, the Secretary of State has inexplicably taken an anti-business approach, choking off growth and denying Oxford Street thousands of new quality jobs, a better public realm and

20

Planning in London

what would be a modern, sustainable, flag-bearing M&S store.

There is no levelling up without a strong, growing Capital city, but the ripple effect extends well beyond Oxford Street. Towns and cities up and down the country will feel the full effects of this chilling decision, with decaying buildings and brownfield sites now destined to remain empty as developers retreat.

The nation’s fragile economic recovery needs Government to give confidence to sustainable regeneration and investment as well as following due process; in London and across the UK. Today the Secretary of State has signalled he is more interested in cheap shot headlines than facts and if it weren’t so serious it would be laughable.

We have been clear from the outset that there is

Some of you will get very upset by this blog post I’m sure. But not as upset as Mr Machin is about Mr Gove no other viable scheme – so, after almost a century at Marble Arch, M&S is now left with no choice but to review its future position on Oxford Street on the whim of one man. It is utterly pathetic.” (Stuart Machin, 20 July 2023) I last wrote about this saga in my 23 April 2022 blog post Does My Embodied Carbon Look Big In This?

Let’s remind ourselves of the route this application for planning permission has taken: • Application submission: 2 July 2021 • Resolution to grant by Westminster City Council: 23 November 2021 • Confirmation by the Mayor that he would not intervene by directing refusal or recovering the application for his own determination: 7 March 2022 • U-turn by the Mayor – he would consider intervening after all • Re-confirmation by the Mayor that he would not intervene by directing refusal or recovering the application for his own determination: 4 April 2022

• Call-in by the Secretary of State: 20 June 2022 • Inquiry held by inspector David Nicholson between 25 October and 4 November 2022 • Decision by the Secretary of State to refuse planning permission, contrary to inspector David Nicholson’s recommendations: 20 July 2023 (David Nicholson’s report having been delivered to the Secretary of State on 1 February 2023).

Throughout this process there has been ferocious opposition to the scheme by some prominent groups and individuals – with detailed representations made; lobbying at each stage, and commentary in the media and social media.

I have often criticised the process whereby the Secretary of State can call-in an application, or recover an appeal, for his own decision-making.

What is the point of local democracy? What is the point of a hugely expensive, lengthy, quasi-judicial process, and a 109 page report by one of our most experienced planning inspectors, when you arrive at this sort of outcome?

If Secretary of State didn’t like the scheme when he called it in, and was going to refuse it in any event, why even the pretence of due process?

To dip into the decision. First point: of course it’s written with an eye to being watertight against legal challenge, by way of making sure that the conclusions revolve around the degree of weight to be attached to specific material considerations and around ultimately subjective assessments as to harm and significance (albeit assessments made without the benefit of hearing the evidence, of accompanied site visits or the ability to ask questions of witnesses). Time will tell if that objective has been secured.

Given that some may think (I couldn’t possibly comment) that this is how the Secretary of State reached his decision, I’m going to start with the overall conclusions (paragraph 51 onwards).

The first set of subjective conclusions (paragraph 51) are findings as to “overall conflict with development plan policies D3 and 38 which deal with design, and partial conflict with heritage policies HC1 and 39”.

That enables him to take the position that the scheme is in conflict with the development plan overall. With the onus shifted, the question for him is accordingly “whether there are material considera-

tions which indicate that the proposal should be determined other than in line with the development plan.”

In favour of the proposal are (paragraph 52) “the advantages of concentrating development in such a highly accessible location, which attracts substantial weight; and the potential harm to the vitality and viability of the area which could follow from a refusal of permission, which attracts limited weight. The heritage benefits carry moderate weight, and the possibility of demolition attracts limited weight. The benefits to employment and regeneration through improved retail and office floorspace, and the benefits in terms of permeability and connectivity, safety and shopping experience and the public realm collectively carry significant weight.” As long as properly reasoned, the weight to be attached to each consideration is for the decision maker.

Against the proposal (paragraph 53) “is the Secretary of State’s finding that in terms of paragraph 152 of the Framework, the proposal would in part fail to support the transition to a low carbon future, and would overall fail to encourage the reuse of existing resources, including the conversion of existing buildings, which carries moderate weight. He has also found that harm arising from the embodied carbon carries moderate weight; and the future decarbonisation of the grid carries limited weight.”

In terms of assessing the heritage impacts of the proposal “the Secretary of State has taken into account the requirements of s.66 of the LBCA Act and the provisions of the Framework. He has found that in terms of paragraph 202 of the Framework, the harm to the settings, and so the significance, of the designated heritage assets would fall into the ‘less than substantial’ category. In respect of Selfridges and the Stratford Place CA, he has found the harm would be at the upper end of that category; in respect of the Mayfair CA it would be in the middle of that category; and in respect of the Portman Estate CA it would be at the lower end of the category. Overall he has found that the harm to the settings of, and significance of the designated heritage assets carries very great weight. He has further considered paragraph 202 of the Framework and has found that the public benefits of the proposal do not outweigh the harm to the significance of the designated her-

www.planninginlondon.com

itage assets. The Secretary of State considers that harm from the loss of the nondesignated heritage asset of Orchard House attracts substantial weight and has considered paragraph 203 of the Framework in coming to this decision. In respect of paragraph 189 of the Framework, the Secretary of State considers that the proposal would overall fail to conserve the heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations. He considers that the possibility of an Oxford Street CA attracts limited weight.”

So what did the scheme in was its design, its less than substantial harm to designated heritage assets which he gives “very great” weight, not outweighed by public benefits; harm from the loss of unlisted Orchard House which he gives substantial weight, and, in terms of climate change issues, the failure to support the transition to a low carbon future (moderate weight), failure to encourage the reuse of existing resources (moderate weight), harm arising from the embodied carbon (moderate weight) and future decarbonisation of the grid (limited weight).

Let’s look in more detail at how the Secretary of State reached some of those conclusions.

Design His conclusion on non-compliance with policy D3 is said by him to follow from his conclusions on the impact on designated heritage assets (paragraph 43).

Similarly policy 38 (paragraph 44). Aside from these conclusions, based on concerns as to heritage aspects, he reaches no conclusions on the design of the scheme.

Heritage So let’s turn to heritage.

The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector (paragraphs 12 to 15) as to the level of harm caused to designated heritage assets. However, he disagrees as to the weight to be given to any harm (paragraph 15): “Given the significance of Selfridges, and his conclusions in paragraphs 13-14 above, the Secretary of State considers that the harm to designated heritage assets in this case carries very great weight. He does not agree with the Inspector’s assessment that the harm to the setting and so to the significance of Selfridges, including with the additional harm to the settings of the CAs, carries only moderate weight (IR.13.11 and IR13.78).”

The Secretary of State agrees with Historic England rather than the inspector as to the significance of Orchard House as a non-designated heritage asset (paragraph 16) and considers that its loss attracts substantial weight. He recognises, some heritage benefits of the scheme, to which he ascribes moderate weight.

Carbon This is the area where we need to pay particularly careful attention.

First, to note that he reaches no concluded view on whether the redevelopment would over the life of the building use less carbon than any replacement: “the Secretary of State has also taken into account the applicant’s argument that over the life of the building it would use less carbon than any refurbishment, which would have to rely on an inefficient building envelope (IR13.38). He agrees with the Inspector, for the reasons given in IR13.37 and IR13.39, that the understanding of WLC Assessments and the tools available for calculations are still developing, and therefore it is no surprise that there was disagreement over the lifetime carbon usage for the >>>

Issue 127 October-December 2023

21

OPINION: M&S MESS | SIMON RICKETTS

>>> proposals and, more particularly, for a refurbishment.” (paragraph 21).

That might be seen as surprising given that surely it is the core issue.

It was said by some that redevelopment should be delayed until the grid is decarbonised, when “the extent of embodied energy, particularly from manufacturing materials, and from vehicle emissions would be much lower or eliminated. He agrees that the proposed development now would result in far more carbon emissions than after the UK has achieved a net-zero grid (IR13.99), because a fully renewably sourced electricity grid should allow most construction vehicles, and the manufacture of concrete, steel and other materials, to be undertaken using renewable energy rather than fossil fuels (IR13.40).” However, he recognised that would not be a practical general principle: “An assessment of the weight to give to the fact that development now will give rise to far more carbon emissions than in the future with a net-zero grid depends on the facts of the case and the planning policy context.

Evidence has been put before the Secretary of State that the existing store is currently assessed as failing (IR13.71), and M&S has stated that it will not continue to occupy and trade from the store for very much longer if permission is refused (IR13.46). The Secretary of State has also concluded that the development is supported by some current and up to date development plan policies which aim to support the regeneration and economic development of the area (paragraph 26 below). Overall he considers that this matter carries limited weight against the proposal.” (paragraph 22) Strangely, although possibly because of the lack of empirical evidence on the point at the inquiry, he gives no weight to any possible reduction in pressure for development elsewhere (paragraph 23).

Paragraph 24 is important: “The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR13.43 that there should generally be a strong presumption in favour of repurposing and reusing buildings, as reflected in paragraph 152 of the Framework. In the circumstances of the present case, where the buildings in question are structurally sound and are in a location with the highest accessibility levels, he considers that a strong reason would

22

Planning in London

be needed to justify demolition and rebuilding.

However, he agrees that much must depend on the circumstances of the case, including how important it is that the use of the site should be optimised, and what alternatives are realistically available. Like the Inspector, the Secretary of State has gone on to consider whether there is a reasonable prospect of an alternative scheme going ahead.”

The Secretary of State’s position as to the prospect of an alternative scheme going ahead is vital to his overall decision: “31. The Secretary of State considers that given the Inspector could not draw clear conclusions on this matter, and its importance in the determination of this application, a degree of caution ought to be exercised in drawing overall conclusions from the evidence, and considering the weight to be given to this issue. He finds the applicant’s evidence much less persuasive than the Inspector appears to have done in light of the gaps and limitations identified by the Inspector. He does not consider it appropriate to draw such firm and robust conclusions about this issue as the Inspector does (IR13.70- 13.75 and IR13.97). The Secretary of State is not persuaded that it is safe to draw the same conclusion reached by the Inspector, namely that ‘there is no viable and deliverable alternative’ (IR13.74), which leads to the Inspector’s overall conclusion that ‘there is unlikely to be a meaningful refurbishment of the buildings’ (IR13.97).

32. Overall, the Secretary of State concludes that the evidence before him is not sufficient to allow a conclusion as to whether there is or is not a viable and deliverable alternative, as there is not sufficient evidence to judge which is more likely. The Secretary of State also does not consider that there has been an appropriately thorough exploration of alternatives to demolition. He does not consider that the applicant has demonstrated that refurbishment would not be deliverable or viable and nor has the applicant satisfied the Secretary of State that options for retaining the buildings have been fully explored, or that there is compelling justification for demolition and rebuilding.

33. The Secretary of State notes that M&S has stated that it will not continue to occupy and trade from the store for very much longer if permission is

refused (IR13.46). Whether or not M&S leave the store following the Secretary of State’s decision is a commercial decision for the company. However, taking into account the locational advantages of the site, the Secretary of State does not agree with the Inspector at IR13.75 that redevelopment is the only realistic option to avoid a vacant and/or underused site. He considers that there is potential for some harm to the vitality and viability of Oxford Street as suggested by the Inspector at IR13.46-47 and IR13.74. However, he does not agree with the Inspector that harm would be caused to the wider West End beyond Oxford Street (IR13.46) as he considers that this overstates the scale of the impact.

He also does not agree with the Inspector’s conclusion that the harm would be substantial. The Secretary of State considers that potential harm to the vitality and viability of Oxford Street could arise from a refusal of permission but, unlike the Inspector, he considers that the extent of any such harm would be limited. He attributes limited weight to this possibility.”

Time will tell if he is right.

I find his conclusion on the carbon which would go into construction materials unfathomable given that he failed to reach a conclusion on whether the new building would use less carbon than refurbishment of the existing building (paragraph 21 quoted earlier above): “45. In respect of paragraph 152 of the Framework, the Secretary of State agrees that a substantial amount of carbon would go into construction (IR13.32), and that this would impede the UK’s transition to a zero-carbon economy (IR13.87). He has found that there has not been an appropriately thorough exploration of alternatives to demolition (paragraph 32 above). He has also taken into account that the carbon impacts would be to an extent mitigated by the carbon offset payments secured via the s.106 Agreement, which would be used to deliver carbon reductions (albeit it has not been demonstrated that the carbon reductions would fully offset the embodied carbon arising from this proposal). He has also taken into account the sustainability credentials of the new building (paragraph 21 above). Overall he concludes that in terms of paragraph 152 of the Framework, the proposal

Proposed

would in part fail to support the transition to a low carbon future, and would overall fail to encourage the reuse of existing resources, including the conversion of existing buildings. The Secretary of State considers that this carries moderate weight against the scheme.

46. The Secretary of State has also considered the Inspector’s conclusion at IR13.99 that of the material considerations in this case, the extent of embodied energy weighs most heavily against the scheme. He has taken into account that a substantial amount of embodied carbon would go into construction. He has also taken into account at paragraph 21 above the sustainability credentials of the new building, and has further taken into account that the carbon offset payments secured via the s.106 Agreement would be used to deliver carbon reductions (albeit it has not been demonstrated that the carbon reductions would fully offset the embodied carbon arising from this proposal). Given his conclusions on these matters, he considers, unlike the Inspector at IR13.99, that in the particular circumstances of this case, the embodied carbon carries moderate weight.”

Finally, a warning against treating this decision as too much of a precedent:

www.planninginlondon.com

“47. The Secretary of State has considered the Inspector’s comments at IR13.94 that there is a ‘growing principle that reducing climate change should generally trump other matters’; and his comments at IR13.99 that as climate change policy is still developing, the Secretary of State is entitled to use his judgement to give this consideration greater weight than the Inspector has attributed to it. Policy in this area will continue to develop and in due course further changes may well be made to statute, policy or guidance. This decision letter sets out the Secretary of State’s judgement on the weight which attaches to these matters in the circumstances of this particular case.

48. The Secretary of State has considered the Inspector’s comment at IR13.95 that fear of precedent could be a material consideration of sufficient weight to justify dismissing the application. However, he is confident that any future decision-maker would pay attention to the whole decision and the detailed reasoning and not just to the outcome of the decision. In any event, the decision turns on its own very specific facts, including the relevant development plan policy matrix, the Inspector’s report and the evidence which was before the inquiry, which are all

unlikely to be replicated in other cases.”

Easy to say but of course there will be attempts to read across these findings to other projects.

My overall prediction? An important part of Oxford Street may well indeed become vacant or subjected to uses which will do nothing for this vulnerable commercial area – which is currently frankly a disgrace. A project has been first stalled, then killed, brought forward by one of the country’s most respected companies, for reasons which aren’t even based on any finding that demolition and rebuild will lead to greater release of carbon over the lifetime of the building than a hypothetical refurbishment of the existing building – and, in so far as they are heritagebased, on the one hand ascribe a surprising amount of weight to the moderate levels of harm arising and on the other ascribe little weight to the public benefits that would surely arise from a twenty first century flagship department store in Oxford Street.

Some of you will get very upset by this blog post I’m sure. But not as upset as Mr Machin is about Mr Gove. n Simon Ricketts, 21 July 2023 Author: simonicity Partner at boutique planning law firm, Town Legal LLP. This blog represents his personal views only.

Issue 127 October-December 2023

23

24

THE LONDON SOCIETY

The Aim of the Society is to stimulate a wider concern for the beauty of the capital city, for the preservation of its charms and the careful consideration of its developments

WHY DO WE EXIST? We believe that London's future must be shaped by contemporary culture as well as its rich and layered history WHAT WE DO Celebrate and enjoy the capital’s culture and architectural history. Debate how we plan a future that is beautiful, sustainable and fair HOW WE DO IT Engage Londoners with how the capital is designed and planned through tours, walks, talks and debates FIND OUT MORE www.londonsociety.org.uk

25

BRIEFING

CLIPBOARD

Development Corporation for Euston The prime minister has announced a new Euston development corporation-led “transformation” of Euston station to deliver up to 10,000 new homes as he confirmed the scrapping of the northern section of the HS2 rail project and promised to invest the £36 billion into ‘hundreds’ of transport projects across the county.

He said there must be “some accountability for the mistakes made, for the mismanagement of this project”.

Under the proposals, every region outside of London would receive “the same or more government investment than they would have done under HS2”.

The Tory Party conference was told that this would fund a range of infrastructure projects, including the West Midlands rail hub, the Leeds tram, upgrades to the A1, A2, A5 and M6, as well as “70 other road schemes”.

ABOVE: An early schematic for the layout of Euston with HS2. Image: HS2 Ltd

'PM to push through "nutrient neutrality" axe' The prime minister intends to push through the axing of "nutrient neutrality" rules by enacting new legislation that would allow him to override a decision made by the House of Lords to vote against the Conservatives' attempt to end the controversial pollution offsetting rule for new housing.

The Daily Mail claims that the measure would be included in a new bill to be announced in the upcoming King's Speech on 7 November. The paper quotes a source as saying: "'The prime minister is absolutely determined to get this through."

Michael Gove, the secretary of state for levelling up, housing and communities, speaking at a fringe event at the Conservative Party Conference said that while the EU legislation had “existed for a good reason”, the way that it had been interpreted meant that there was a “total freeze on development, particularly housing”. This “total moratorium on large parts of the country” was “disproportionate”, he said, noting that new housing contributes a “tiny” amount.

The government’s proposed approach would have ended the “moratorium on house building” >>> without being “negligent” about the environ-

26

Planning in London

BRIEFING

CLIPBOARD

ment.“We’re going to take the first available opportunity to bring appropriate legislation into the House of Commons to deal with this situation”, Gove said. Downing Street is drawing up a new bill that would allow the government to drive through the plan.

More affordable housing could save £1.5bn a year A new report led by UCL finds that building 90,000 social and affordable homes a year could save the government £1.5bn a year in homelessness costs. It would result in savings from lower costs in a host of other areas, the researchers said. Savings would be found in housing and other benefits, the health, social, homeless and criminal justice services, unemployment, and in children’s lost education.

The report says the £1.5bn annual figure is an underestimate, since it does not include all the costs in these sectors or wider impacts on economic growth, productivity and life chances. It estimates the cost of homelessness in the UK, including people in temporary accommodation, insecure or inadequate housing and rough sleepers, to be £6.5bn a year.

The authors, who include researchers from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, propose that government grant funding should be gradually raised from £1bn a year to £5bn a year over the next five years so as to enable the building of 72,000 additional social or affordable homes a year, on top of the 28,000 a year that are currently built. Around 150,000 homes are built each year by private house builders.

This new study set out the wider economic benefits of building more social and affordable housing – including income and corporation tax revenue, and greater economic growth and productivity. At the same time, people who are homeless or in precarious housing suffer worse physical and mental health and poorer access to health care. This leads to higher healthcare costs and more disability benefits.

The report argued that new homes should be a mix of social rent housing, partially discounted affordable housing, and homes to be

www.planninginlondon.com

sold or rented at market value to subsidise this cost. The bulk of these new dwellings would need to be provided by local authorities.

Researchers also highlighted recent successful examples of affordable and sustainable housing that could be scaled nationally, including Norwich City Council’s Goldsmith Road scheme and Camden Council’s retrofit of the Agar Grove Estate.

Along with the research, UCL, Westminster housing association Dolphin Living and architecture firm John McAslan + Partners, have launched a coalition called the Social and Affordable Housing Initiative with the aim of bringing together experts from the public and private sectors to establish strategies to address the housing crisis and build 100,000 social and affordable homes a year.

Rosalind Raine, professor of health care evaluation at UCL and co-author of the study, said: “The housing crisis impacts on individuals, families and communities directly and indirectly. It is possible to tackle the holy grail of improving everyone’s lives, with benefits accruing the fastest for the most vulnerable.

“Our report does not rely on polemic but on published data. This summarises the evidence on the health and wider social impacts, the economic costs and savings, and highlights exemplars of social and affordable housing which can feasibly be scaled nationally.” – from a report in Housing Today

Skills gaps and a lack of resources

Sixty six per cent of local government placemaking professionals felt their team did not have the ‘necessary bandwidth and skills’ to tackle their authority’s strategic objectives such as meeting net zero targets. So concludes a report by Public Practice, which embeds private-sector architects and designers within planning departments.

They carried out the poll to shine a light on the skills gaps in local authorities and what impact the lack of resources is having on planning teams across England. More than half of the respondents (54 per cent) said their councils had difficulty retaining staff while one in seven of those who answered said they wanted to leave the public sector.

Public Practice's research showed the average job

satisfaction score reported by a placemaking professionals in England's local authorities had dropped to 5.66 out of 10 – down from 6.32 in last year’s survey.

The social enterprise said that while Covid 'may have played a part' in the drop in numbers, a reduction in local government workers appears to show no signs of slowing. The number of full-time positions fell by 10 per cent in 18 months, from 1,024,400 in spring 2021 to under 922,000 at the end of last year.

According to Public Practice, local government capacity problems were being further compounded by an inability to recruit adequate replacements for those quitting the system. More than three-quarters of the placemaking professionals questioned (78 per cent) said their council had difficulty attracting appropriately qualified or skilled candidates to fill the capacity gaps in their teams.

Nearly a fifth of respondents (17 per cent) said their recruitment activities had failed to attract any suitable candidate. – from a report in the AJ.

When is permission required for WFH? The government has updated a section of its planning practice guidance (PPG) entitled “When is permission required?”, with the only addition being the insertion of a new paragraph 014 which sets out when planning permission is needed to work or run a business from home.

The original paragraph 014 was included in the PPG when it was first published in 2014, but was removed from the guidance in January 2022.

The guidance that existed between 2014 and 2022 said that planning permission would “not normally be required to home work or run a business from home, provided that a dwelling house remains a private residence first and business second”, or in planning terms that a “material change of use” had not occurred.

It stated that the local planning authority was responsible for deciding whether planning permission is required and would determine this on the basis of “individual facts”.

“Issues which they may consider include whether home working or a business leads to notable increases in traffic, disturbance to neighbours, abnormal noise or smells or the need for any

Issue 127 October-December 2023

>>>

27

CLIPBOARD

CLIPBOARD

>>> major structural changes or major renovations”, it added.

However, the paragraph was deleted from the document in January 2022 in the wake of a High Court judgment which backed a council's decision requiring a householder to seek planning permission for running his business from home.

The judge found paragraph 014 was “potentially misleading” because it both implied that "incidental" use was synonymous with "secondary" use and suggested that environmental considerations were the key test.

The government’s newly-reinstated paragraph 014 now provides that planning permission will “not normally be required to home work or run a business from home, provided that home working or a business use is incidental to the use as a dwellinghouse”.

It states that the local planning authority must consider whether the use of the property for such purposes is “reasonably incidental to its use as a dwelling house”.

In instances where a “material change of use” has occurred, planning permission will be required, it states, adding that whether this has taken place is a “matter of fact and degree” and will be “determined on the individual merits of a case”.

It adds that in reaching a decision, an authority must consider whether home working “has led, or will lead, to a notable change in the character of a property’s use”.

It states that the environmental impacts of this use, such as traffic increases, disturbances to neighbours caused by the frequency or timing of visitors or deliveries, abnormal smells, or the need for “major renovations”, may indicate such a change. – DLUHC and DCP Online n

First geothermal borehole finished at new City of London hub The first of more than 60 240-metre-deep geothermal boreholes has been completed on the Salisbury Square Development – a new civic hub in the heart of the City of London. (SEE our picture feature on pages 9 to 13).

The development, funded by the City of London Corporation, will house a flagship facility for His

28

Planning in London

‘Europe’s tallest modular building’ completed in east Croydon The modular developer Tide has finished work on its College Road scheme near East Croydon station. It is understood to be the largest volumetric modular tower in Europe.

The scheme comprises two buildings: a 50-storey build-to-rent development with 817 one-bed and studio apartments, and a 35-storey building providing 120 affordable homes.

Founded in 2013, Tide Construction is a volumetric modular developer that delivers student accommodation, private-sale and affordable homes, hotels, co-living spaces and build-to-rent properties. Tide and its volumetric manufacturer sister company Vision currently have more than 3,500 homes under construction and have delivered 10,000 student beds. HTA Design was the architect for the scheme, which was designed collaboratively with Tide and Vision’s in-house design teams.

Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Services (HMCTS) and a new state-of-the-art base for the City of London Police, plus grade A office accommodation, a remodelled listed building, and an enlarged and improved public realm.

It is the first scheme in the Square Mile to embrace a standalone closed-loop cooling and heating solution without the need for gas. The boreholes, installed for the ground source heat pump system by main contractor Mace and subcontractor G Core, are some of the deepest to be embarked on in the City – at a depth of over three-quarters of the height of The Shard.

The system takes advantage of consistent temperatures deep underground and is the most energy-efficient method of heating and cooling using all-electric solutions with power sourced from renewable sources with no use of fossil fuels. – The Planner

Let’s get Britain’s Future Back Keir Starmer Promises a Decade of National Renewal. Claire Petricca-Riding Head of Planning & Environment at Irwin Mitchell made the following comments as Keir Starmer addressed the Labour party conference,

“What the country needs is a vision, a strategy showing a new direction after the cancelling of HS2 or what some have described as ‘cancelling the future’. What Labour says it will provide is the framework to build a new Britain and at the heart of it will be the increase in housing - providing a safe home for all generations – to get Britain building over the next decade – a decade of national renewal. The plan? To create 1.5 million homes over the next Parliament – to buy or rent – with communities having a say on how these homes should be delivered.

This will mean a new generation of new towns near cities and the release of land in the not so green –- all the shades of grey – green belt as well as providing additional powers to local authorities and establishing a new presumption in favour of development or a ‘planning passport’ on brownfield land as long as design principles are met.

This will be welcome news to a sector where the last year of uncertainty, rising inflation and interest rates as well as the near collapse of local plans means that planning applications for housing developments have fallen to a record low.

It is certainly a bold statement from the opposition – selling a vision and strategy – ‘Together we fix tomorrow’s challenges today’. n

¡PILLO!

¡PILLO!

Hole in one for housing It is suggested that the capital's golf courses should be reclaimed in order to build flats and rewild land.

A comment article in the Evening Standard (RIGHT) argues that golf courses within London should be reclaimed.

It argues that the capital city's historically rising house prices are not due to planning laws, "greedy developers" or the policies of the London mayor or prime minister. Instead, it claims, they are a result of London's 11,000 acres of land used for golfing, equivalent to twice the size of the borough of Hackney, meaning less space is available on which to build housing. “From where did golfers get their sacred rights to these vast expanses? It’s not clear to me. No other sport demands so much land to be enjoyed by so few people.

And let’s not forget the huge environmental costs of these sites. Many were created at the expense of destroying dense woodlands. Now they sit as carefully mowed lawns, bereft of biodiversity and requiring huge volumes of water to keep them maintained.”

Net Zero in 4,700 years Planning for Net Zero and Nature finds that to reach onshore wind capacity called for by government advisers in England, it would take 4,700 years at the current rate of development.

Boring buildings to blame Did you hear Thomas Heatherwick’s first-in-aseries on Radio 4, which claimed that boring buildings are responsible for heart attacks and fuelled the civil war in Syria?

Bunkum like this is bound to succeed.

Does the state have to house me We don't value housing as a service enough to make it a state priority. "If you ask the average Joe 'What does the state do for you?', he'll say the state should keep me healthy. Secondly the state needs to keep me secure. Thirdly, the state needs to make a big fist of educating me. Then they start to really worry about whether they've a fourth one.

If I ask a Dutch person that question they will without any doubt say the state has to house me'."

– Marc Vlessing MD of Pocket Living n

www.planninginlondon.com

Issue 127 October-December 2023

29

BRIEFING | PLANNING PERFORMANCE

Decisions both decided and granted continue to fall over the past year Latest planning performance by English districts and London boroughs: planning applications in England between April to June 2023 OVERVIEW

Between April to June 2023, district level planning authorities in England: • received 92,500 applications for planning permission, down 14% from the same quarter a year earlier; • decided 87,400 applications for planning permission, down 12% from the same quarter a year earlier; • granted 75,300 decisions, down 14% from the same quarter a year earlier; this is equivalent to 86% of decisions, down two percentage points from the same quarter a year earlier; • decided 20% of major applications within the statutory period of 13 weeks, up one percentage point from a year earlier; and • decided 89% of major applications within 13 weeks or the agreed time, up three percentage points from the same quarter a year earlier; • granted 8,000 residential applications, down 8% from the same quarter a year earlier; • granted 1,700 applications for commercial developments, down 6% from the same quarter a year earlier; and • decided 47,600 householder development applications, down 18% from the same quarter a year earlier. This accounted for 55% of all decisions, down from 58% a year earlier.

In the year ending June 2023, district level planning authorities: • granted 315,500 decisions, down 13% from the year ending June 2022; and • granted 34,100 residential applications, down 8% from the year ending June 2022.

Planning applications received During April to June 2023, authorities undertaking district level planning in England received 92,500 applications for planning permission, down 14% from the same quarter a year earlier. In the year ending June 2023, authorities received 381,100 planning applications, down 13% from the year ending June 2022 (Live Table P134, PS1 Dashboard).

Planning decisions Authorities reported 87,400 decisions on planning applications in April to June 2023, down 12% from the same quarter a year earlier. In the year ending June 2023, authorities decided 364,500 planning applications, down 11% from the year ending June 2022 (Live Tables P120/P133/P134, PS1/PS2 Dashboard).

Applications granted During April to June 2023, authorities granted 75,300 decisions, down 14% from the same quarter a year earlier. Authorities granted 86% of all decisions, down two percentage points from the same quarter a year earlier. In the year ending June 2023, authorities granted 315,500 decisions, down 13% from the year ending June 2022. Authorities granted 87% of all decisions, down one percentage point from the year ending June 2022 (Live Tables P120/P133, PS2 Dashboard).

Applications on hand Authorities reported that they had 138,400 applications on hand as at 1 April 2023. This is 58% above the number of decisions made during the quarter. The corresponding figure for the same quarter a year earlier was 55%. (Live Table P133, PS1 dashboard).

Historical context Figure 1 shows that, since about 2009-10, the numbers of applications received, decisions made and applications granted have each followed a similar pattern. As well as the usual within-year pattern of peaks in the Summer (July to September quarter) and troughs in the Autumn and Winter (October to December and January to

30

Planning in London

March quarters), there was a clear downward trend during the 2008 economic downturn, followed by a period of stability. There was a large dip in 2020 following the start of the pandemic and a subsequent recovery in early 2021, including a particular peak in applications received, and since the peak there has been an ongoing downward trend.

Regional breakdowns Table 1 shows how numbers of applications received, decisions made and decisions granted varied by region. It also shows how the percentage of decisions granted varies widely by region, from 79% in London to 92% in North East (Live Table P133, PS1/PS2 Dashboard).

Table 2 like Table 1 shows how numbers of applications received, and planning decisions made, varied by region. It also shows the percentage change in number of applications received and decided compared to the same quarter a year earlier. The percentage change in the number of applications received varies widely by region, from 18% in the East Midlands to -9% in the West Midlands (Live Table P133, PS1/PS2 Dashboard).

Decisions granted Figure 2 summarises the distribution of the percentage of decisions granted across authorities for major, minor and other developments using box and whisker plots. The ends of the box are the upper and lower quartiles, meaning that 50% of local authorities fall within this range, with the horizontal line in the centre of the box representing the median. The whiskers are the two lines above and below the box that are 1.5 times the size of the box (the interquartile range) with the dots representing outliers. Figure 2 shows that the range between the whiskers for the percentage of applications granted is widest between authorities for major developments (43% to 100%), followed by minor developments (53% to 100%) and other developments (73% to 100%) (Live Table P133, PS2 Dashboard).

Speed of decisions In April to June 2023, 89% of major applications were decided within 13 weeks or within the

Planning decisions by development type, speed of decision and local planning authority.

All tables and figures can be found here: https://tinyurl.com/mwbhef99 Source: DLUHC/ONS

agreed time, up three percentage points from the same quarter a year earlier.

In the same quarter, 84% of minor applications were decided within 8 weeks or within the agreed time, up two percentage points from the same quarter a year earlier.

Also in the same quarter, 89% of other applications were decided within 8 weeks or within the agreed time, up two percentage points from the same quarter a year earlier.

For more information on major, minor and other developments please see the PS1 and PS2 district planning matter guidance notes.

Figure 3 shows that range between the whiskers for the percentage of decisions made in time this quarter for major developments was (64% to 100%), for minor developments it was (57% to 100%) and for other developments it was (69% to 100%) (PS2 Dashboard).

Use of performance agreements ‘Performance agreement’ is an umbrella term used here to refer to Planning Performance Agreements, Extensions of Time and Environmental Impact Assessments. Between April to June 2023, 42% of all planning application decisions involved a performance agreement. Major developments were more likely to involve a performance agreement compared to minor and other developments with 75% of major decisions involving a planning agreement, compared with 51% of minor decisions and 36% of other decisions (Reference Table 2, PS2 Dashboard).

Figure 4 shows, from April 2010, the numbers of decisions on major, minor and other developments made involving a performance agreement, compared with numbers without a performance agreement. Notwithstanding definition changes, there has been a marked increase in the use of agreements since early 2013 (see Technical Notes for more information). This longer upward trend has been driven by both the additional scope for recording them and their additional use (Live Table P120, PS2 Dashboard).

Performance of individual district level local planning authorities

www.planninginlondon.com

The existing approach to measuring the performance of authorities was introduced by the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 and is based on assessing local planning authorities’ performance on the speed and quality of their decisions on applications for major and non-major development. Where an authority is formally designated by the Secretary of State as underperforming, applicants have had the option of submitting their applications for major and non-major development (and connected applications) directly to the Planning Inspectorate (who act on behalf of the Secretary of State) for determination. See Improving planning performance: criteria for designation for more information.

Speed of decisions The designation thresholds, below which a local planning authority is eligible for designation are: For applications for major development: less than 60% of an authority’s decisions made within the statutory determination period or such extended period as has been agreed in writing with the applicant; For applications for non-major development: less than 70% of an authority’s decisions made within the statutory determination period or such

extended period as has been agreed in writing with the applicant. See Live Tables P151/P153 Quality of decisions The threshold for designation on applications for both major and non-major development, above which a local planning authority is at risk of designation, is 10% of an authority’s total number of decisions on applications made during the assessment period being overturned at appeal.

See Live Tables P152/P154 Residential decisions In April to June 2023, 11,300 decisions were made on applications for residential developments[footnote 3], of which 8,000 (71%) were granted. The number of residential decisions made was down 5% from the same quarter a year earlier, with the number granted down 8% from the same quarter a year earlier. 900 major residential decisions were granted, down 11% from the same quarter a year earlier and 7,100 major residential decisions were granted, down 7% from the same quarter a year earlier (Live Table P120A, PS2 Dashboard).

In the year ending June 2023, 47,300 decisions were made on applications for residential developments, of which 34,100 (72%) were granted. The >>>

Issue 127 October-December 2023

31

BRIEFING | PLANNING PERFORMANCE

>>> number of residential decisions made was down 6% from the previous year, with the number granted down 6% from the previous year. 4,100 major residential decisions were granted, down 10% from the previous year and 30,000 minor residential decisions were granted, down 8% from the previous year.

Residential units The figures collected by the Department are the numbers of decisions on planning applications submitted to local planning authorities, rather than the number of units included in each application, such as the number of homes in the case of housing developments. The Department supplements this information by obtaining statistics on housing permissions from a contractor, Glenigan[footnote 4].

The latest provisional figures show that permission for 264,000 homes was given in the year to June 2023, down 8% from the 286,000 homes granted permission in the year to June 2022. On an ongoing basis, figures are revised to ensure that any duplicates are removed as far as possible, and also to include any projects that local planning authorities may not have processed: they are therefore subject to change, and the latest quarter’s provisional figures tend to be revised upwards. For the previous eight quarters, the year to figures have been revised upwards by 2% on average. These figures are provided here to give contextual information to users and have not been designated as National Statistics.

When considering the above figures in relation to the central government ambition of raising housing supply to 300,000 homes per year on average by the mid-2020s, it should be noted that many permissions do not result in a home being delivered in practice. This is due to a range of reasons, relating to the circumstances of landowners and developers, as well as the local and national economy. In addition, i) time lags in building can affect the number of homes built in a particular period; and ii) the methodology used cannot guarantee that all double counting of permissions is removed from the above figures.

In comparing the number of residential applications granted and the number of units granted, it should be noted that the two series measure different things and use data from different sources, and so may not track each other closely over the short term. More specifically, this difference is likely to be due to a combination of differences in the timing of recorded decisions and a difference in the average numbers of homes included within the relevant planning applications.

Commercial decisions In April to June 2023, 1,900 decisions were made on applications for commercial

32

Planning in London

developments[footnote 5], of which 1,700 (90%) were granted. The number of commercial decisions made was down 6% from the same quarter a year earlier, with the number granted down 6% from the same quarter a year earlier. 400 major commercial decisions were granted, down 5% from the same quarter a year earlier and 1,400 minor commercial decisions were granted, down 6% from the same quarter a year earlier (Live Table P120B, PS2 Dashboard).

In the year ending June 2023, 8,000 decisions were made on applications for commercial developments, of which 7,100 (89%) were granted. The number of commercial decisions made was down 7% from the previous year, with the number granted down 7% from the year ending June 2022.

1,600 major commercial decisions were granted, down 7% from the previous year and 5,600 minor commercial decisions were granted, down 7% from the previous year.

Trends in numbers of residential and commercial decisions

Historically, numbers of residential decisions dropped sharply during 2008 (particularly for minor decisions) then increased from 2012, before decreasing since about 2018 (major decisions) and 2019 (minor decisions).

Numbers of commercial decisions also decreased sharply during 2008 and then stabilised at around 2,100 per year for major and 10,000 per year for minor commercial decisions, but have undergone some further decreases recently, to around 1,700 and 7,000 decisions per year respectively.

Trends in the percentage of residential and commercial decisions granted SEE Fig 3.14.

Householder developments Householder developments are those developments to a residence which require planning permission such as extensions, loft conversions and conservatories (see Definitions section of the Technical Notes).

The number of decisions made on householder developments was 47,600 in the quarter ending June 2023, accounting for 55% of all decisions, down from 58% of all decisions made in the quarter ending June 2022. Authorities granted 89% of these applications and decided 91% within eight weeks or the agreed time (Reference Table 2, PS2 Dashboard).

In the year ending June 2023, 199,500 decisions were made on applications for householder developments, accounting for 55% of all decisions, down from 58% of all decisions made in the year ending June 2022. Authorities granted 89% of these applications and decided 89% within eight weeks or the agreed time.

Major public service infrastructure development decisions Since August 2021, major public service infrastructure developments broadly defined as major developments for schools, hospitals and criminal justice accommodation have been subject to an accelerated decision-making timetable.

Separate figures on major public service infrastructure development decisions have been collected on the quarterly PS2 return with effect from October 2021. During April to June 2023 there were 18 decisions, of which all 18 were granted and 18 were decided in time (Live Table MJPSI, PS2 Dashboard).

Please note that figures are not collected on the CPS1/2 return and so don’t include education developments by county councils.

Permission in Principle/Technical Details consent decisions Since April 2017, local planning authorities have had the ability to grant permission in principle (PiP) to sites which have been entered on their brownfield land registers. Where sites have a grant of permission in principle, applicants have been able to submit an application for Technical Details Consent (TDC) for development on these sites. In addition, since June 2018, it has also been possible to make an application for PiP for minor housingled development as a separate application, independently of the brownfield register. Where a site has been granted PiP following an application, it is possible to apply for a TDC. Figures on PiP/TDC decisions have been collected on the quarterly PS2 return from January 2020.

During April to June 2023, local planning authorities reported 109 PiP (minor housing-led developments) decisions, 12 TDC (minor housing-led developments) decisions and 3 TDC (major developments) decisions. The totals for the previous quarters have been similar although there has been a slow upward trend since 2020, when there were about 60 PiP decisions per quarter (Live Table PiP/TDC1, PS2 dashboard).

www.planninginlondon.com

Permitted development rights Planning permission for some types of development has been granted nationally through legislation, and the resulting rights are known as ‘permitted development rights’ (PDRs). For certain permitted development rights, if the legislation is complied with, developments can go ahead without the requirement to notify the local planning authority.

Hence no way of capturing this data exists and these are not accounted for in this report. In other cases, the permitted development right legislation requires an application to the local planning authority to determine whether or not prior approval is required and to determine as appropriate (see the Definitions section of the Technical Notes).

Between April to June 2023, 6,800 applications were reported, of which prior approval was not

required for 3,500, permission was granted for 1,700, and 1,600 were refused. This resulted in an overall acceptance rate[footnote 6] of 77%. Large householder extension accounted for 58% of all PDR applications reported, with 28% relating to All others, 7% relating to Agricultural to residential, and 4% relating to Commercial Business and service to residential (Live Tables PDR1/PDR2).

In the quarter to June 2023, 900 permitted development right applications were made for changes to residential use, of which 600 (66%) were given the go-ahead without having to go through the full planning process.

Overall during the 37 quarters ending June 2023, district planning authorities reported 313,300 applications for prior approvals for permitted developments. For 176,500 of them prior approval was not required, 72,500 were granted and 64,300 were refused (Live Table PDR2). n

Issue 127 October-December 2023

33

BRIEFING | LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM

Urban rooms – The M&S decision – (‘St Michael’ versus St Michael) A city short of children – Ideas for planning reform from BL and LandSec Account of Forum meeting on 21st September at NLA London Centre at Guildhall Minute based on Twine recording on Zoom also at planninginlondon.com > LP&DF DISCUSSION TOPICS

1 Urban rooms – every city should have one Peter Murray founder of New London Architecture [NLA] I'm Co-Founder of NLA, Chairman of the Temple Bar Trust and former Chairman of the London Society. So every town has to have one. The ‘one’ is an urban room.

I thought I'd go through various types of urban rooms and the way that I see NLA relating to them, because there are lots of different types of urban rooms. I guess the first one that I became aware of was at Bristol, where there was the Centre for the Advancement of Architecture. And to a certain extent what I've been doing really is the advancement of architecture.

But the problem is that actually architecture is less fashionable to talk about these days. What people want to talk about ‘place 'and less tangible things like that. I can remember when Richard Simmons took over at CABE and gave his first speech at the National Portrait Gallery. He got up and he could hardly get the word architecture out of his mouth when he explained CABE’s name. The built environ-

ment bit was stronger and you will see that now at NLA where we are the ‘home of the built environment community’, so much wider than architecture, which is probably as it should be.

I started to get interested in the idea of making the wider public more interested and informed and engaged with discussions and debates around architecture.

I started Blueprint Magazine in 1983 with exactly that aim, having been editor of the RIBA Journal for five years but started to feel rather institutionalized there. We did actually get out to quite a lot of non architects but there were never quite as many as we'd have liked. But the key thing was it was read by other people in the media. And they picked up stories that we had in Blueprint, and they did the promulgation for us. That was the designer decade. So it really did work to spread the word about architecture to a wider public.

New Architecture, the work of Foster, Rogers, Stirling at the Royal Academy of 1986 which I organised with Deyan Sudjic was a very popular exhibition: Richard Rogers displayed his ideas for a bridge across the Thames near Charing Cross Station - a pedestrian bridge instead of the rail bridge that's there at the moment. Foster showed his proposals for the BBC Building and Stirling his National Gallery extension submission. Someone in the Foster office changed

rather the tone of the title of the show by suggesting that ‘Rogers’ could be read as a verb!

Then later I curated the Living Bridges exhibition at the Royal Academy in 1996. The idea was to have more regular exhibitions about architecture and built environment at the Royal Academy. But it was difficult to get artists to agree to give over space to architecture. There was a plan for an architecture show every two years and in the end it was every ten years. It is always very heartwarming to speak to architects now who say, “Oh, I went to that exhibition when I was at school and that's what got me into architecture.” These are ways of advancing architecture to a wider public.

I'd always been a great fan of the Pavillon de l'Arsenal in Paris. That was really set up so that the Président could tell people what the next grands projets were going to be. It wasn't so much at that stage about engagement. It is much more about engagement today, but is a really good way of showing off what is happening in Paris, getting people to understand the City both for visitors and for locals. A place for debate and discussion. And a place for temporary exhibitions about issues of architecture and the built environment generally. It took quite a long time before London could catch up. There were lots of discussions about the idea of doing something like it. I worked with Ricky Burdett on a big exhibition in the

Meeting held on 21st September at NLA London Centre at Guildhall SEE Fred Pilbrow’s sketch above Moderators Brian Waters of BWCP Riette Oosthuizen of HTA Design Speakers Tom Dobson of Quod Michael Meadows of British Land Co Peter Murray of NLA Fred Pilbrow of Pilbrow and Partners Jon Tabbush of Centre for London

34

Planning in London

Attendees Peter Eversden of London Forum Lizzie Le Mare of Tibbalds Martin Thompson of CULS Daniel Leon of Square Feet architects Giulia Robba of Farrells Alexandra Bullen of Metropolitan Workshop Richard Coleman of City Designer John Walker of CT Group Nicholle Kingsley of Pinsent Masons

Michael Coupe of Coupe Planning Mark Willingdale of Willingdale Associates Apologies Chris Hogwood of Landsec Sarah Allan (DLUHC) Brian Whiteley of the RTPI Jonathan Manns of JLL James Mitchell of Axiom Architects

Highlights by Twine AI "I really started off interested in the idea that we made a wider public more interested and informed and engaged with the discussions and debates around architecture." - Peter Murray 🏙 Urban Rooms and Architecture Centers •The importance of engaging the public in architecture and urban planning discussions was emphasized.

•Various urban rooms and architecture centers around the world were discussed, with potential expansion in London mentioned. 🏢 NLA and its Role •The NLA supports London's development and engages with wider communities, focusing on the wider London area. 📊 Changing London Landscape •The NLA's "Changing Phase of London" exhibition showcases the city's development and radical changes in opportunity areas. 🏗 Tall Building Survey •The number of tall buildings in London has increased dramatically, with changing attitudes towards them. 🌍 Wider Engagement •The possibility of the NLA engaging with other architectural centers and groups for a strategic vision of education was discussed, with funding limitations mentioned. 🔨 M&S Building Retrofit •The project's challenges and opportunities in reducing embodied carbon in construction were discussed, with material reuse being a key factor. 🏗 Building Discussion Royal exchange in 1992. I did an exhibition with Nick McKeogh, who is my co founder in NLA, called it New City Architecture which got a very good response.

New City Architecture was exhibited in a basement in Broadgate. It got 10,000 visitors in just in one month. So we thought there is basically an interest here. Something that would work. Over the page is the first sketch I did for a chap called Michael Rose, who at that stage was the chairman of the Building Centre. The Building Centre had recently had a very expensive revamp. They had a coffee machine and big open spaces. But there was nobody

www.planninginlondon.com

•The conversation revolved around the demolition and reconstruction of a low-carbon, materially efficient building on Orchard Street. 📉 Demographic Trends •The discussion covered demographic trends in London, including decreasing numbers of families with school-aged children in certain areas, and factors such as housing costs, childcare, and income. 🏠 Housing and Rent •Rent and housing costs are the main concern for families in London, with potential impacts of new transport infrastructure like the Elizabeth Line discussed. 👶 Childcare •London's high childcare costs were highlighted, with the potential for businesses to provide childcare facilities to help retain talent in the city discussed. 🏗 Planning and Development •The potential for London to become more segregated was explored, with the role of social housing and new transport infrastructure discussed. 📣 Key Highlights •The brownfield-first approach presents opportunities for urban development in the UK, with positive reactions from industry and politicians, and engagement with key stakeholders. 🏘 Community Involvement •Involving communities in the planning process was emphasized, with suggestions for increasing participation through digital means and co-design workshops. 🔧 Planning System Challenges

there. The place was absolutely empty.

So Michael Rose took me out to lunch in Charlotte Street and said can you put on an exhibition that would get people coming to the Building Centre. I think at that stage he just wanted a single exhibition. Foster, Rogers, Stirling or something like that. Foster’s partner Spencer De Grey was at the time the chairman of the Building Centre trust. My view was that actually what they wanted was something that would bring people back on a regular basis. And the answer was clearly something about London because everyone in London is interested in London, everyone working in London in the

built environment is interested in what's going on.

So it was temporary exhibitions that would bring people into the Building Centre on a regular basis.

And it would fulfill the long term dream to create something which would compare with the Pavillon de l'Arsenal. As a place, as I saw it at that stage, promoting the advancement of architecture. This was the sort of sketch I did, which went with a little report which went to the Building Centre trustees.

And I was told it is the only time that the Building Centre trustees had agreed to anything unanimously.

I did it together with Nick McKeogh. Luckily his

Issue 127 October-December 2023

35

>>>

BRIEFING | LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM: EVERY TOWN SHOULD HAVE ONE

>>> father was then running Pipers the model makers, and the key thing we needed was a good model. And Pipers had the model. We got together and put it in the Building Centre. It started to work right from the word go. Well, not quite from the word go, because the day we were opening was the day of the bombs in the Tube. That wasn't a great start, but somehow it did strengthen one's resolve to look at the holistic idea of the city and what it was doing today. I went down to Trafalgar Square, where Ken Livingstone had that community meeting, which I thought was really, really important. It reinforced the idea of a resilient city, which has been through so much change over so many centuries. Layer upon layer upon layer and we were adding a sort of next layer of that history. And of course, on a more positive note, the night before that the Olympics had been announced. We then had five years of programming focused very much around what was happening to London more generally as a result of the Games as well as all the various developments and programmes that were taking place as a result of the first London Plan developed

by Ken Livingstone but with Richard Rogers and Urban Task Force Ideas in the background.

So the first exhibition we put on at NLA was The Changing Face of London, which took in 42 Opportunity Areas looking at masterplans. We had a lot of those, just either sketches or cgis – pretty rough ideas of what was going to happen such as Kings Cross at a very early stage. It gave a very optimistic picture of the growth of London, the amount of change that London was about to face. And it was all very exciting. It had the idea of Pavillon de l'Arsenal in the background.

As a long term friend of Terry Farrell we talked a lot about architecture centres and what one should be. And of course, it was the Farrell Report which then came up with the idea of the Urban Room.

As an organisation we support London. We are pro development, but we want to engage with wider communities as well. And I have to thank Peter Eversden for always being in the front row and asking difficult questions. We do provide free community places for people who want to come in and get engaged in the debate. We are very disappointed in the current Mayor in the way that he fails to stand up for London more widely at a time when we are really under pressure. And I think back to those heady days when almost every day Ken Livingston would tell the government how many billions it was that London actually donated to the rest of the economy to keep the country going. That sort of message needs to be repeated.

We are a little bit boosterish in that respect. And we also have lots of tourists who come and find out about London. We take a position which Ollie Wainwright doesn't like very much, but we are slightly different to some of those smaller, urban rooms that do have this close community engagement. We

36

Planning in London

ABOVE: Sterling Roger s Foster show at the Royal Academy 1986

BELOW: Living Bridges exhibition at the Royal Academy in 1996

TOP: Pavillon de l'Arsenal in Paris ABOVE: Peter’s early sketch for NLA at the Building Centre BELOW: The new Farrell Centre in Newcastle

look at the wider London, and I think more than ever now, actually. We need to see and discuss London as a whole. There's too much debate of individual boroughs having very different views about what happens and operating separately.

I was on the Earls Court site just the other day where the line between Kensington and Chelsea and Hammersmith runs straight down the middle of the site which of course provides quite interesting planning discussions there.

We are great supporters of positive change in London. So we started NLA with an exhibition called the Changing Face of London which was full of cgis.

The exhibition that you see in the centre now around the walls, is almost all those opportunity areas now built out, not all of them, but most of them. They have created radical change to the city that you can see on our model (which is probably the best way to see this change in the shape and skyline of London) where the opportunity areas are denser, new places are close to good transport connections, with generally taller buildings. So you see these clusters of towers popping up right across London. That was one of the reasons why we started our annual Tall Buildings survey. Which probably as far as the newspapers are concerned put us on the map more than anything else.

In 2013 at a development down in Greenwich I went to a press conference where Boris Johnson announced that he had to build 42,000 homes a year. I remember that he said, “Well, it doesn't mean there are going to be tall buildings popping up all over London”. Actually, we knew that it did, because you see them in the pipeline. And so we thought we would start counting them. And we started off. We didn't catch them all. But we started off with about 220, which astonished everybody.

By about 2016 there were 550. Then there was hardly a murmur from anybody about it. Somehow attitudes had changed dramatically.

I’ve spent too long and afterwards will be very happy to take a little tour around the space. But now happy to answer any questions.

Discussion Brian – a Tour de Force. Thank you very much.

In the current issue of Planning in London, starting on page six find the summary of NLA’s latest tall building survey.

Michael Coupe – I think Simon Allford has been trying to turn the RIBA, which he described as an oil tanker, around. Do you think in the future it could be more engaged with the NLA? In a way you've made them look rather rather pedestrian.

Peter – I ran the publishing arm at the RIBA and edited RIBA Journal. And then I got involved in the funding for the move of the Drawings Collection to the V&A. And that was when they changed. They used to run themselves rather like government so >>>

www.planninginlondon.com

Issue 127 October-December 2023

37

BRIEFING | LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM: EVERY TOWN SHOULD HAVE ONE

ABOVE: Copenhagen funded by a benevolent corporation

BELOW: One of NLA’s models of London

>>> they had a civil service. Then they decided, no, we need a chief executive. We’ve got to be thrusting and modern. So they created a chief executive, while also having a new President, who, like most architects, wants to change things and build their own stuff. Now they don't engage and it's too competitive.

When we went to the Building Centre you suddenly realized actually it was a benefit of it not being an architectural place because anyone would come in, whether quantity surveyors or engineers, they actually felt quite relaxed. We got a much wider audience there.

I think the RIBA’s role is to be an umbrella organization. You used to have a whole series of groups par-

38

Planning in London

ticularly when there were more architect in the public sector. There was SCALA, for chief architects in local authorities. There were county architects. There was the Salaried Architects Group. There was then also a private practice group, the ACA, because there were so many people in public practice, still going strong. And all those people would engage with the RIBA. Now there isn't that interest. I would say that is partly down to the fact that having a chief executive and becoming corporate creates a whole lot of silos within the organisation.

The NLA’s next move will be to the base of 55 Bishopsgate, which received planning permission about three weeks ago. The City Corporation plan-

ning department is very key to encourage buildings that will bring in new audiences to the City to maintain activity in the light of people coming to work in the City only on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday. We were on their list. So they said to Schröders “You need to provide some decent s106 on this” and we were the chosen party They redesigned the bottom four floors for us. That will happen probably in six or seven years’ time.

Q: Do you have space for lectures or temporary exhibitions to expand your programme.?

A: Yes we'll have a bigger space for lectures, larger area for the model. There will be also a public space where we can do sort of experiments. Meanwhile, get students to make the sort of stuff we do once a year in the annual festival.

There are a lot of different types of architectural Centre. Groups which are funded privately or they are funded by government.

We did have public funding through CABE which was then cut off overnight by Ed Vaizey, who then went on to set up the Farrell Review. It was all done very cynically. It's one of the reasons why I never wanted to rely on public money at all. A great friend of mine, Nick Barley, used to run the Lighthouse in Glasgow. They had £2 million a year from Glasgow Council and a million a year from Scottish government. They employed about 70 people and at just one Council meeting they cut the budget. Everyone lost their jobs.

When we started NLA everything was booming. If we wanted to put on an exhibition we could ring up Roger Madelin and ask for 25 Grand. It came the next day. In 2008 Tony Pidgely, who had given us £30,000 a year sent a cheque for £50 saying this was all they could afford. That's when we set up a membership scheme. I've spent a lot of time helping to raise money from various organizations. That is the best model, because nobody, not even the Mayor of London has more than 1% of our total income so you can offend people and not worry if they take their money out. It's very resilient. NLA’s not going to disappear tomorrow.

The very best is found in Denmark where Realdania has a pot of about £3 billion or something just sitting there. And they hand out that money. If there was somewhere like that in the UK, great, but not many places have it. Internationally it's all very different.

If you look at the city of Paris the Pavillon de l'Arsenal is publicly funded. French public works have historically always been better funded than English ones. Local authorities in the UK like Croydon, when they're going through a period of great change, they find it quite difficult. They have a very broad range of residents and people and businesses who need to be consulted about what's going on. If you've got a shop front you can very easily do something relatively inexpensive. n

BRIEFING | LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM: THE M&S DECISION

DISCUSSION TOPICS

2 The M&S decision Fred Pilbrow of Pilbrow and Partners Thank you for the invitation to talk about our proposals for M&S at 458 Oxford Street and the consequences of Goves’ rejection of the scheme against his own planning inspector’s advice.

Our proposals at Marble Arch created a new flagship M&S store, below offices on the upper floors and a transformation of the public realm at the base of the building. We were involved in pre-application discussions with Westminster City Council and the Mayor’s office from early 2019. A detailed planning application for the scheme had been approved by both authorities by 2022. The Secretary of State then called in the application for his own determination, leading to an inquiry in the autumn and his rejection of the scheme earlier this year. M&S are currently challenging Michael Goves decision which contradicted the conclusion of the planning inspector supporting the scheme.

I will explain first how our Marble Arch proposals evolved and and why we concluded a new building was the only viable solution for the site. Our opponents, SAVE, argued at the planning Inquiry for a retrofit, and I would then like to assess the Inspector’s view of their scheme. I share his deep misgivings.

Finally I would like to describe the work we have undertaken with Arup to further reduce the new building’s embodied carbon; work that would deliver the new building for less embodied carbon that the SAVE retrofit.

The M&S proposals With growing competition from the internet, physical retail today needs to deliver a high quality customer environment and support exacting standards of service. Older stores with confusing and chaotic layouts are being driven out of business.

This is part of a wider change observable right along Oxford Street with the decline in multilevel department stores – witness the closure of House of Fraser and Debenhams and John Lewis’ proposal to remodel their Oxford Street flagship.

Some successes against this general decline are instructive. Selfridges remains buoyant and it is, in my view, no accident that the quality of the physical environment at Selfridges is of the highest calibre. I took the Inspector around David Chipperfield's superb refurbishment of the eastern end of Selfridges. Five and a half metre ground floor heights, big, regular open structural grids, great daylight, all the stuff that we proposed in the new building for M&S (and all the stuff that's precluded by their existing buildings). The Inspector didn't make comment about our proposals on the site visit , but he did make

www.planninginlondon.com

the observation that Selfridges was very busy on the day we visited (M&S by contrast had been nearly empty.)

Over the last decade there had been a slow decline in trading levels at M&S’ existing Marble Arch flagship. The existing store is arranged over five levels, has nine cores, eleven separate storage areas, and is as chaotic to visit as a customer as it is challenging to operate for M&S. We know that from M&S’ own data that their trading rates have declined most steeply on the upper floors, with few customers making it to the top-most levels. So what M&S are looking for is large, efficient floors, conveniently accessible from ground level (and you see similar ambitions at neighbouring Oxford Street developments.)

In consequence, we're planning the new store over only three levels, none of which is more than a storey from Oxford Street. It is all configured to be accessible and pleasant for the customer and efficient for M&S to operate.

The Kensington Building Could these ambitions be delivered in the context of a refurbishment to the existing buildings? We think not.

We carefully tested refurbishments at the outset and over 16 such schemes were described in the Design and Access Statement which accompanied the planning application. We found the level of compromise in a retrofit to be very high and the carbon savings illusory. Perhaps such severe compromises would have been acceptable if the heritage value of Orchard House had been high, but by any objective assessment, this simply wasn’t the case.

As architects we like retrofitting existing buildings and, hopefully, we are good at it. Our Kensington Building has just been recognised by the BCO retrofit of the year in the London region (and was a runner up nationally.) It is a retrofit of a former department store which now delivers great contemporary retail

and office space. The quality of the public realm is also transformed, with new permeability, landscaping and high quality design.

The 1970s brutalist Kensington building was ugly and hostile, but it had many qualities that we could exploit in the retrofit. It benefited from a regular open structural grid, great floor to ceiling heights, and high retail live loadings. These factors allowed us to remodel the building to deliver the right end result.

We added three stories and brought the building elevation out to the historic line on Wrights Lane. We took full advantage of the four and a half metre floor to ceiling heights, which deliver big, open, clear and flexible floors. The new plant and facades deliver excellent operational carbon performance, the new terraces address tenant desire for external amenity and wellbeing. That this building meets contemporary occupier demand is evidenced by successful lettings to an Italian eyewear manufacturer, a private equity group and Manchester United Football Club at rents that set new benchmarks in Kensington.

Marble Arch Existing Situation The context at Kensington could hardly be more different to the context at Marble Arch.

At Marble Arch we start with three buildings not one. Each is compromised in its structural grids with dense and irregular columns spaced as tights as 2m apart. Each has constrained floor to floor heights and each has multiple cores -many of which are located at the façade. The interiors are, in consequence, dark.

And so you have three buildings, each with its own problems. The difficulties get exacerbated when you consider the buildings as a group, because the floors don't line up necessitating ramps to connect you between buildings. The column grids misalign so you get a dense weave of columns blocking internal views. Cores offer redundant services and make navigating through the building very challenging.

Pre-Internet perhaps you could get away with this >>>

Issue 127 October-December 2023

39

BRIEFING | LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM: THE M&S DECISION

>>> calibre of dire space but unfortunately today’s customers are too discerning and they basically won't patronise a space that's confusing, stressful and cramped.

If the customer journey is bad, the M&S servicing challenge is worse because they're trying to serve the retail across those nine cores. Staff and goods follow tortuous routes from the loading to the points of sale in a manner that is labyrinthine. This adds to cost and reduces quality of service.

Two of the buildings -Neale House and 23 Orchard Street- are of abject quality and detract from the setting of the Grade II* Selfridges next door.

Orchard House was rejected for listed (SAVE applied) and has been excluded from the conservation areas that surround the site. These facts are objective measures of the building’s heritage significance. Certainly, Pevsner was underwhelmed stating ‘the pilastered Marks and Spencer 1929-1932 shows clearly what a convinced single minded design Selfridges was’.

Mr. Gove is very exercised by the relationship between these two buildings – Orchard House and Selfridges. For me, I see the Selfridges building as an incredible piece of confident Chicago architecture. By contrast, Orchard House appears to be a rather thin papery kind of imitation of it. I'm not sure that means they're great neighbours. (Interestingly Mr. Gove saw little merit in our proposed removal of the dire 60’s bridge over Portland Mews. Beauty must be in the eye of the beholder.)

Orchard House’ s significance is further reduced by the fact that the ornament at the top of the building has been removed and the ground floor disfigured by road widening in the 1970s. As a result, pedestrians today walk in a dark undercroft against a solid brown granite wall. The public realm is bad here and it gets worse round the back, where Granville Place is a diesel-soaked, vehicle dominated service yard. This at the centre of Westminster.

The New Building Proposal The new building allows all this to be properly addressed. Replacing the three compromised structures allows the creation of generous open and flexible floorplates that suit both the needs of M&S as well as office tenants for the upper floors.

We can set consistent and taller floor to floors giving handsome and well lit spaces. We can plan the core to the centre of the floorplate maximising the quality and flexibility of both retail and office.

The new building allows the servicing to be discretely relocated to Portman Mews – no reversing, everything safely off street. Clearing the trucks out of Granville Place allows the creation of a garden here which links to St Christopher’s Place on the other side of Selfridges through a new top lit galleria across our site. I think it's quite important to create these oasis spaces off Oxford Street because you can’t sit and have a coffee on Oxford Street itself because

40

Planning in London

The Kensington building

you would knocked down by all the pedestrians.

Oddly, SAVE acknowledged these design moves delivered by the new building were the right thing to do. They argued that the same things could be delivered by a retrofit and Simon Sturgis tabled a retrofit scheme on the final day of the Inquiry. I confess I was quite shocked by its poor quality.

Firstly, Sturgis proposed very extensive demolitions -taking down ALL the existing nine cores and then constructing a new core in the same location we proposed for the new build (which obviously required further demolition). These moves alone demolish more than a quarter of the existing building including heritage elements like the Orchard House stair that other SAVE witnesses said had heritage

ABOVE: Selfridges in the foreground with the existing M&S store beyond BELOW: The internal retail quality of the existing M&S store

value. Odd. Secondly, Sturgis suggested our servicing on Portman Place was also correct and proposed to copy it. However this is very challenging to deliver in a refurbishment – the ground floor height is too low and you need to transfer eight columns to create the space for the service vehicles. Nothing is impossible but the move would require extensive and carbon intensive structural gymnastics.

Thirdly, the permeability delivered by the new build was acknowledged as valuable however Sturgis

www.planninginlondon.com

concluded the structure of the refurb precluded it.

Perhaps a tunnel to Oxford Street could be offered in lieu? This might be OK, but it failed to link to Selfridges and failed to restore the historic permeability across the site.

Fourthly, SAVE acknowledged that there was a good sustainability case to intensify uses at this site which benefits from the highest levels of public transport accessibility. So vertical extensions (in carbon intensive steel) were proposed to the maximum allowed by the existing foundations and superstruc-

ture. Fine again, the problem here is that the scheme delivers 1400 fewer jobs than the new build (whose scale had been set by Westminster City Council) because the limits of existing structure curtailed the site’s full development potential. I am concerned that delivering the 1400 job shortfall in a less connected location (and no site in London is better connected than 458 Oxford Street) will associate this employment with more private car usage, more pollution, and substantially more carbon.

But what was the end result of Sturgis’ scheme? >>>

Issue 127 October-December 2023

41

BRIEFING | LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM: THE M&S DECISION

>>> Even after all this carbon expenditure, the profound drawbacks of the internal floorplates remained unaddressed and the quality of the public realm remained seriously substandard. The inspector’s evidence on these points is worth quoting at in detail: The Inspector asked Sturgis about whether he could ‘cite an example of three comparable separate structures being successfully refurbished?’ In response the Inspector noted: However, I was not directed to any development which suffered from ALL these shortcomings. [Inspector’s report 13.68] At paragraph 13.70, the inspector stated: On the evidence before the Inquiry, I consider that the only remaining refurbishment scheme for the site [the SAVE scheme] is so deeply problematic, even for Oxford Street, that no-one would be likely to pursue it or fund it.

At paragraph 13.70, the inspector stated I find that there is no viable and deliverable alternative and that refusing the application would probably lead to the closure of the store, the loss of M&S from the Marble Arch end of Oxford Street and substantial harm to the vitality and viability of the area.

This is a material consideration of substantial weight.

Further Reductions of Embodied Carbon.

Embodied Carbon has become a core aspect of the debate around the M&S proposals, and the Inspector acknowledged that in his report, saying he thought it was perhaps the first inquiry to have had to consider embodied carbon.

The GLA’s London Plan policy is quite advanced here, requiring whole life carbon assessments and circular economy statements, UK national planning policy is still some way behind where we are in London. The Mayor’s support for the proposals (re-

42

Planning in London

confirmed even after lobbying by SAVE) provides important context to understand whether the proposal are complaint with policy in relation to embodied carbon and good circular economy principles.

The importance of the carbon associated with the construction, alteration and maintenance of buildings – their embodied carbon – has grown as buildings have become more operationally efficient and the primary energy used to power them – electricity- has itself decarbonised.

We've been seeing this decarbonisation of the grid progress year on year with an expectation it will reach net zero by 2030. Now that trajectory, as you'll be aware, has stalled a little with recent bidding for offshore wind farm licenses failing to secure a successful bid but the direction of travel is clear.

Its also fair to say that the decarbonisation of the grid is reducing embodied carbon in materials and assembly but it's doing so more slowly. In conclusion, the carbon going into construction and maintenance is becoming proportionality becomes more important.

There is a very simplistic assumption that retrofit must result in lower embodied carbon emissions because you are retaining more fabric (and doesn’t this fabric have embodied carbon in it?) Actual project data for the schemes submitted to the GLA since whole life carbon and circular economy statements became mandatory contradicts this. Average embodied carbon is higher for new buildings but there are many examples of new build being delivered for lower embodied carbon than the sort of cut and carve retrofits advocated by SAVE at Marble Arch.

The reasons for this are varied and include the

constraints of working within existing structural limits (often driving the use of carbon intensive steel) and the complexity of temporary works to reconfigure existing structures. Moreover, limited design lives for remodelled buildings may be associated with more frequent and more extensive ongoing maintenance adding to the whole life embodied carbon.

Material reuse studies I wanted to also talk about some work that we've done over the last nine months with structural engineers ARUPs to deliver the new building at embodied carbon levels below the SAVE retrofit (520kgCo2e/m2 a1-a5).

At the public inquiry, I said to the Inspector, that we have carefully calculated the embodied carbon figures associated with the new build proposals. To construct the building, we will require 651kgCo2E/m2 (a1-a5). This compares to the GLA business as usual figure of 900kgCo2E/m2 (a1-a5). I went on to state our, and M&S’, ambition to drive that figure down by 20% during detailed design.

We’ve done that on our Edge building at London Bridge. Here we're currently on site for Edge Technology and Goldman Sachs with a tall building that sets benchmark standards for operational environmental performance. The building is BREEAM Outstanding, Wired Platinum and WELL Platinum.

Operational energy use intensity, inclusive of tenant loads, will be around 57kwh/m2/annum.

Working with main and trade contractors and our engineering colleagues on the project, we have succeed in reducing the embodied carbon on this project by 20% and this reduction has been captured in the construction contract with MACE – the first time this has been done to our knowledge in the UK. In the months between the inquiry and Mr. Gove's decision, we have worked with ARUP to see how we would do that at Marble Arch. One strand of our work about which I am particularly excited in looking at material reuse of concrete.

One of the existing buildings -Orchard House- is steel framed and we were already planning to recycle the Portland Stone for our cladding and the steel for our column reinforcement. The other two buildings, Neale House and 23 Orchard Street are concrete framed, and this is a material which as traditionally been difficult to effectively recycle. In most cases, the concrete is crushed and used as aggregate okay, but most of its material value is lost.

With Arup, we have been exploring vaulted structures which employee, very efficiently, concrete’s considerable compressive strength. We propose to precision cut the slabs as we dismantle the existing buildings. This disassembly severs the reinforcement and reduces the concrete’s tensile strength, however it remains strong in compression. The precision cut segments are reassembled into arched or vaulted

structures which allow a radical reduction in embodied carbon. For a typical 9m x 9m post-tensioned concrete bay we need around 300mm of thickness of concrete and 180kg C02e/m2. A vaulted shell structure on the same 9m x 9m span requires only 100mm of concrete, and if this concrete is recycled the structure is associated with less than 40kg c02e/m2.

The approach works well with our displacement ventilation approach, where for reasons of energy efficiency and wellbeing, generous air volumes are introduced at floor level. The upper surface of the shell vaults provide the plenum for air distribution.

As well as being embodied carbon efficient, the vaults themselves are very beautiful. We calculate that the new building, utilising this construction methodology could be realised for 475 kg c02e/m2– a figure well below that associated with the SAVE retrofit.

DISCUSSION Q: Your client is presumably paying for this continuing work despite the Secretary of State’s decision.

Fred: Pilbrow & Partners and Arup are exploring concrete material re-use as part of our ongoing research collaboration. M&S are committed to the very highest environmental standards and its noteworthy in this context that the BREEAM Outstanding scheme reviewed at Inquiry would have been in the top 1% of the UK office buildings for environmental efficiency.

Following further discussion the chairman thanked Fred for his illuminating presentation.. n

LEFT: First floor plan for the heavy refurbishment with roof extensions which the opposition would advocate as the right way forward for the site

>>>

www.planninginlondon.com

Issue 127 October-December 2023

43

BRIEFING | LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM: DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS | JON TABBUSH

>>> DISCUSSION TOPICS

3 A city short of children: demographic trends affecting planning and development in London Jon Tabbush of Centre for London I should probably start with a few disclaimers. I'm neither a planner nor a developer. I also don't have any children.

But demographics have become a special topic of interest in the media - the FT, the Standard, and a few other publications have begun publishing articles around the issue, because of the closure, threat of closure, or the threat of merger of several historic schools around London.

The schools pictured (RIGHT) are threatened with closure or merger. Many of the parents have special reason to be concerned if they have children with SEN issues. It's also fairly traumatic for children to have to move school en masse to other facilities. So this has provoked the underlying question of why this is happening.

Last November, when this story was beginning to emerge, the first census release on household characteristics came out, (SEE MAPS) and I had a look at the proportion of households that have at least one school-aged child across London.

So that’s 2001 and you can see there’s the City, there’s Westminster, with relatively low proportions of families with children, kind of what you'd expect.

Going back to 2011, the trend is beginning to intensify in London, but it's still fairly concentrated. And then by 2021, you've got this distinct inner core of low child boroughs.

There are some strange, exceptional boroughs.

Westminster, for example, bizarrely shows an increase in that proportion, but that's not a real phenomenon. It's just because the census was taken in May 2021 during the pandemic, when lots of highly mobile, young migrants would have been back in their home countries, as well as due to Brexit.

Camden is seeing the same phenomenon as the rest of inner London, but it’s not reflected in this data for the same reason as Westminster.

On the other hand, you see Lambeth getting about a 10% fall over that period, while Barking and Dagenham, on the other side, sees a 34% increase, which is a truly shocking demographic transition. To have a 34% increase in the proportion of households with school age children is monumental, and there's clearly movement of households happening, as well as decreases in childbearing.

This chart is what's called the ‘total fertility rate’, which shows the average number of children that a woman would bear if she matched the average of her

44

Planning in London

Inner London schools threatened with closure or merger

age group. Since 2012 you have decreases everywhere, across basically the entire world. But far less than in London. And you can see that transition point, where, around 2008, Newham’s TFR collapses, and Barking and Dagenham’s stays steadily high. And the same phenomenon is reflected in the live birth rate, where you can see inner and outer London diverge quite distinctly over the 2010s.

We have a few ways of thinking about why that might be. You could say that it’s people choosing to move out at a greater rate when they want to have children or expand their family. There are people choosing not to have them at all. There are people not being able to. And that's where the next graph comes in, because London saw by far the largest increase in the proportion of families with nondependent children still living at home. That is, peo-

ple who are above the age of school, independent, economically active and still living at home. I'm sure there are quite a few of you here who either have either experienced that phenomenon or have seen it among your peers.

As you would imagine, it’s fairly difficult to decide to expand your family and have a child when still living at home, though it does happen. And that should be another factor here.

But the obvious fact is we have long term, midterm and short-term factors. The longest term are the global transition towards female participation in the labour force and education, which is all to the good and nothing at all to be concerned about there – the concerning factors are to do with housing, childcare and income.

Childcare. Some of you might know that London

>>>

www.planninginlondon.com

Issue 127

45

BRIEFING | LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM: DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS | JON TABBUSH

>>> is the most expensive place to raise a child in the UK, I believe one of the most expensive across Europe.

Although some working parents receive 30 hours a week of free childcare, it's paid at far too low a rate for providers to cover their costs, so they often have to reduce places.

But rent and housing costs are the heaviest burden for individuals. If you look at a healthcare assistant for example. If they were living in inner London, receiving the inner London weighting allowance, they'd be spending at least 70% of their gross, not net but gross, salary on rent, even if they rent at the lower quartile level. And a qualified nurse will be spending again more than half of their gross salary.

That's actually a massive underestimate of how this would actually look, because if they were moving to inner London, they would be paying the average rent for new lets, which is much higher than for the total stock of rents.

So, in Barking and Dagenham and Tower Hamlets if you look at housing delivery per person on a yearly basis since 2004, these two boroughs have seen the most change anywhere in London.

But one of them has experienced a demographic explosion – a massive expansion in the number and proportion of families with young children - while the other has seen a demographic collapse in children. While Barking and Dagenham is becoming more and more hospitable in some ways to young families, Tower Hamlets is moving in the other direction. And it shows that the trajectory of change is what matters here – where you started from, and where you’re going. Barking and Dagenham was a classically exindustrial region, not especially integrated into London, with extremely low-density housing, and lots of land dedicated to employment. Tower Hamlets, before the creation of Canary Wharf, was overwhelmingly council homes, housing families.

So although both have delivered very large amounts of housing, their trajectories have been entirely different.

Housing delivery is a key part of this process. It shows that the question is not just: have you been delivering enough homes or even have you been delivering enough social homes, because those social

46

Planning in London

homes are one of the main ways that the healthcare assistant and nurse we were talking about would be living in London in the first place. It doesn't appear to be the only factor. Barking and Dagenham hasn't had that much of an expansion of social homes, but just has had very low land prices and a huge expansion of stock. While Tower Hamlets has built a lot of housing specifically not designed for young families, but designed for young professionals on high-incomes.

And that will likely have supported holding down housing prices elsewhere in London by expanding supply, but it has taken the borough on an entirely different demographic trajectory This kind of leaves us with the question of where is this process going . If this is driven by economics, if it's driven by housing, incomes and childcare costs, we're going to become a significantly more segregated city. We're going to be looking at a city a lot more like Paris, a lot less like London. The reason why international workers come here is both labour markets and culture. London has punched massively above its weight culturally, if you look at film, art and music for many decades. And it's generally the less affluent people living in London who have been the driving forces there. So will that vibrancy that attracts people continue to survive?

The big normative question is: should planning and development even be trying to stop this? You could say this is the consequence of the return to the inner city of the affluent, usually white, middle class, after the 1960s and the decades of urban decline. You could say this is a natural process, that this is how it used to be. But is this something we want? I would argue no, at least not the exclusion of other sectors of society.

I would argue we probably do want to reverse it or at least want to stem its flow. Because spatial segregation acts very differently to deprivation. There is a significant difference to the life chances of a young person growing up in deprivation if they have a social network that includes wealthier people. Y ou can see this in boroughs like Islington where despite very little estate demolition and much of their deprived population basically staying put, by comparison with other boroughs, their schooling out-

comes and educational outcomes are through the roof, even among people with high levels of deprivation. So they're clearly, in effect, keeping people together.

But the interesting question is the question of housing delivery and what kind of housing we're looking to be delivering in the first place, because you could say there's a conflict between providing housing for young workers and providing for families with young children. It's an argument that could be made.

They obviously interrelated but they are sometimes competing. And this comes out in the bedroom data and debates about how many bedrooms should be delivered in different kinds of developments.

Most people I know of my age, young professionals, are living in what would have been family homes, but have either made into HMOs, flat-shares, or flatted houses. But, being a little self-centred, if more housing existed for me and people like me, then I wouldn't be living there, and people like me would not be moving out of London either. So, there isn't necessarily a conflict between building new one- and two-bedroom units and freeing up stock for families.

The other question that's very interesting here is about student housing. Purpose built student housing, PBSA, is often framed as a kind of unpleasant alternative to providing long term homes. In some cases, obviously, it interplays with the Section 106 system and with the affordable housing system in quite strange and unpredictable ways that don't necessarily produce outcomes we agree with, but the alternative is just living in HMOs. That's the alternative for student housing. And I don't know necessarily how that helps people looking to bring back singlefamily homes into single family use.

So those are a few questions that come up here.

But this is only really scratching the very surface of it.

The trajectory doesn't look good if you are looking to preserve a city which has a large proportion of young families, but also a large proportion of people with different income mixes, and I would say probably racial mixes as well.

We start from a position where housing delivery is clearly key. And there are low hanging changes like just paying childcare providers at a higher rate, so

they can cover their costs in Inner London. But we don’t actually have an exact answer here. So, it would be fascinating to hear your thoughts and your questions.

And we at Centre for London are thinking about doing more work on this, so if that’s something you’re interested in, do come and talk to me afterwards.

DISCUSSION Q: You can’t get the quality teachers. Parents are making a decision to move to where it’s a lot better. In some schools, you don’t have parking anymore, so some teachers move out. I think there are many reasons why this is happening.

A: I’d say the point isn’t that people moving out to the suburbs around London when they have children is the problem. It’s not. It’s the historic trend, which happens in all major cities to a degree, aside from cities like Hong Kong and exceptions like that.

The problem is, if there is one, is acceleration, it's getting faster and faster and changing fundamentally the quality and character of the city left behind.

On the interesting point about schools - London schools are getting much, much better, probably better than the schools outside of the city, in the places that people are choosing to move to, but doesn't seem to make a difference. That suggests there are economic incentives that aren’t to do with parental choice over school quality.

Q: Does the Elizabeth Line change things? Or is it too soon show up? Because what it’s done is to expand the ability of people in a much wider area to commute into London very easily.

A: The lag is enormous – if you’re looking at demographic or schooling data, we’ll be waiting the very long period for a child to reach the age they’ll need to go to school. So if you were to move to a Crossrail suburb today, that will show up many years later.

Q: People on lower incomes are the ones generally being priced out. There's no affordable housing being delivered across the city. So we're going to end up with a kind of economic apartheid. How has it gone so terribly wrong?

A: It is definitely bound up with incomes. The lower income you are, generally speaking, the more children you have. But also, people who can afford to live in the inner city may not want to stay there when they do have children, because again, there's a kind of cyclical effect, where if there are no schools in the area, you don't continue to have your children there, if other families who have children don't live there anymore.

The question is whether or not people are able to come back eventually. This new model is not necessarily wrong. It's just a different model. One with an extremely segregated inner city, with almost uniformly high incomes. It's extremely ethnically segregated, with very little social housing. And has a poor band around the outside, like the Parisian banlieues.

www.planninginlondon.com

That is a model. Like a lot of other cities. It's not an impossible one to run. You can run a successful city that way. But it's not at all how London worked, really, at any point. And if we're choosing to transition in that direction, we should be aware that it will be a culturally very different city.

Economically too, in London we have the highest backlog in terms of nurse recruitment of anywhere in the whole country. It's impossible to hire new nurses in much of inner London. Either we're saying people have to live extremely far out or out of the city entirely and commute, in or we develop a closer, denser, more city centre-focused approach. So, it's not necessarily that it's gone terribly wrong. It's just a different model.

RO: Jon, you raised many questions and deal with very complex issues. Who are the final audience for the research? For example, Barking and Dagenham has an interesting demographic due to a significant number of the population being under 24 (that was the case about 5 years ago – I was struck by it) but also the fact that the majority of the population were dependent on the private rented sector (I have not checked recently). Despite more homes being built, we are not building the right homes at the right cost/affordability point.

Areas like Islington are interesting as the Council has a good affordable housing building programme.

They have been one of my clients for many years and they have been super committed to increasing social rented affordable housing in particular family sized housing.

At present, there is a bit of a crisis as many boroughs do not see many applications for C3 housing coming forward at all. It has become too complex.

Applications for Build to Rent and Co-living are increasing. These type of housing tenures fill a gap in the market of ‘lifestyle rented housing’’but it comes at a price – it is impossible to save to buy your own home at the same time!

With student accommodation we have seen some London boroughs fiercely resisting purposebuilt student accommodation despite the fact they

have no purpose built schemes in the borough at all.

The London Plan requires all London boroughs to address the need for student accommodation. The majority of purpose-built student schemes are concentrated in Zone 1, creating further affordability issues.

Your point about HM’s are key – the majority of developers resist building three bedroom or larger homes. The three-bedroom flats built are not affordable at the right price point, so it is important to stop more HMO’s being created.

All the best for the rest of the research.

A: The research originally just came out of a blog I wrote last November, that has been followed up with a few pieces I helped with in the Guardian and FT. We work on a project-funded model, so frustratingly I can’t justify too much more data work without finding a source of funding for the project. If one presents itself, I have plans to write up a longer report on London’s demographic transitions, use more granular LSOA-level data and do a few regressions to work out what has played the biggest role in the shift. I think it could be of some use to the GLA and the boroughs.

On your latter points, I agree completely – Barking and Dagenham is probably the most interesting borough in London for someone interested in demographics and the future of the city, it’s such an extreme example of an industrial area becoming part of London proper, and has the largest proportion of 0-15 year olds of any local authority in the country, as you say.

It’s very true that BtR and co-living fulfil a purpose, the former working perfectly well across most of the developed world, but it would be interesting to see if they’re making any serious efforts to expand beyond young professionals. PBSA is a very interesting market and has a definite social purpose in freeing up family homes for families, but their quality often seems fairly poor in person!

The chairman thanked Jon for his insights into a topic which will need more exploration as time goes on. . n

>>>

Issue 127 October-December 2023

47

BRIEFING | LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM: IDEAS FOR PLANNING REFORM | MIKE MEADOWS

!"#$%&'#(%)*

>>> DISCUSSION TOPICS

4 Ideas for planning reform from BL & LandSec Mike Meadows Head of Planning and Public Affairs at The British Land Company and Tom Dobson Managing Director of Quod I'm going to say a little bit about me and some of the other people who are involved with the report.

I'm Head of Planning and Public Affairs at British Land and writing our recommendations for planning policy for government is absolutely the apex of my brief. We co-wrote this with Landsec with my counterpart there, Chris Hogwood who is MD of Corporate Affairs and Sustainability and I'm very grateful to Tom Dobson of Quod. He was one of the very first people to review this report, for his insights and for being here today. And to Simon Ricketts of Town Legal.

We were very deliberate about calling this a discussion paper because we want to have a discussion.

This is the right and the only way to reform the planning system. But we wanted to stimulate a debate.

And we've done that in person, largely with political stakeholders and with people across the industry and a lot on social media. We haven't done very much of this in person with the industry. So I'm grateful for you having me here today. And really would welcome your feedback on the recommendations.

So just a bit of background. The first question that we get asked: Why did you write it? And I think there are two parts to that question: Why did you say what you said? And why with Landsec? Going back a couple of years during the pandemic, coming out of moratorium we wrote something together then on what we thought was the way out of the moratorium and that seemed to have an impact with government .

The two businesses and the two CEOs thought maybe we could approach planning reform in a similar way. It reflects our shared experiences. If you look at the portfolios of the two businesses there's a lot we have in common. So what we wrote was about reforming the planning system but focused particularly on brownfield and urban regeneration. So it draws on our experience of developing Canada Water and LandSec’s experience of developing Mayfield in Manchester and the O2 Centre in Camden.

We thought it was important to highlight solutions as well as challenges. We're sort of agnostic on political party. This is for the next government whoever may form it so we wanted to be honest about what we thought didn't work about the planning system but offer some solutions. And we were very clear that these are reforms which can be delivered quickly

48

Planning in London

AB>CB>* DAE>>F>G* H*CIJIABDKI>L* MB!=K

!"#$%"$&'("&)$%!'$*+,--.-/$010%')$%"$2-+"34$ 2&5,-$&'/'-'&,%."– !"#$"%&'()*+,-*./0-"1*"23"-'"(%".

– 4')/$')/&'()*.+$,&'+(.*0.*5"$$*0.*%/0$$"()".

– !"#+-6.*5/'%/*%0(*7"*1"$'8"-"1*9,'%:$;*5'&/+,&*.')('#'%0(&*3,7$'%* #,(1'()*+-*3-'60-;*$")'.$0&'+( – <-+5(#'"$1*#'-.&*033-+0%/ – =(1"-.&0(1'()*&/"*.%0$"*+#*&/"*+33+-&,('&;*'(*,-70(*0-"0.

– !"0%&'+(*0(1*3+$'&'%0$*"()0)"6"(& – >"2&*.&"3.

• ?/+-&@&"-6*%/0()".

• A+()"-@&"-6*%/0$$"()".

!"#$%&'#(%)* C!D0!D$ BCEDDFDG$ H$0?I?C!BJ?DK$ L!=MJ

!"#$%"$&'("&)$%!'$*+,--.-/$010%')$%"$2-+"34$ 2&5,-$&'/'-'&,%."!"#$#%&'((%)*+,-')./ – 0%1-)%$+)*$1'&".$')$2#'3)1-%4*$"#2+)$#%5%)%#+,-') – 6%&"#%$7"-&8$3-).$+)*$9-4',$)%3$3+:.$'1$3'#8-)5$-)$9#'5#%..-;%$+",<'#-,-%.

– =%.'"#&%$,<%$.:.,%($%11%&,-;%4:$+)*$#%*"&%$&'(94%>-,:$+)*$*"94-&+,-')$,'$ -(9#';%$9%#1'#(+)&% – ?)&'"#+5%$9#'9'#,-')+,%$*%&-.-')@(+8-)5$,'$%)."#%$,<+,$94+))-)5$*%&-.-').$ +#%$,+8%)$+,$,<%$4%;%4$+,$3<-&<$,<%-#$-(9+&,.$+#%$1%4,$+)*$3-,<$+)$+99#'9#-+,%$ 4%;%4$'1$%>9%#,-.%

– ?)+24%$*%;%4'9(%),$')$2#'3)1-%4*$4+)*$,<#'"5<$)+,-')+4$94+))-)5$9'4-&: – A#%+,%$2%,,%#$,+>$-)&%),-;%.$,'$%)&'"#+5%$-);%.,(%),$-)$-)1#+.,#"&,"#%$+)*$ #%(%*-+,-') – B",$&'((")-,-%.$+,$,<%$<%+#,$'1$*%;%4'9(%),

7. Put communities at the heart of development Through our work in urban regeneration, we know that community engagement, which is inclusive and responds to local priorities, is vital in shaping successful places that are supported and championed by local people.

Recommendation: •

The complexity of the current planning system can deter people from engaging in development. However, we believe that broadening this engagement is critical to making development work for local communities and in turn unlocking economic growth and housing delivery.

We also believe that widening involvement in planning is critical to building public trust and securing more representative public participation. This can be achieved by creating real, measurable opportunities for people and communities to engage in the planning and design process, with scope for influence, so that local people can help shape future spaces and feel connected to the opportunities and benefits of development.

All developers create community consultation method statements at the pre-application stage committing to a specific plan to engage and involve the local community. Where developers commit to and deliver an inclusive programme of community consultation, the local authority should create a fasttrack determination stream that prioritises these applications over those who fail to involve the community. This could result in more applications being determined within the statutory determination period or being moved up the priority list for forthcoming planning committees. This would not only speed up the planning process, unlocking growth, but also incentivise all participants in our sector to deliver growth in the public interest and with community consent.

3

without significant public funding. And I think in most cases without primary legislation as well.

And if you look at the planning reform agenda over probably the last 13 years, you could say, but certainly over the last three or four has got really bogged down in a kind of fundamental reform. So we wanted to focus on stuff that we thought could be delivered relatively quickly. And actually without a huge deal of controversy.

Unashamedly we took a brownfield first approach. I think the genesis of this was a conversation between our two CEOs about how we focus planning reform on delivering on Brownfield development, where there is some political consensus. If we are going to increase housing targets by 35% in towns and citieshow would you deliver that? And what kind of planning system would you need? The next step for us is research on the scale of the opportunities in the urban areas. When we wrote this we didn't have time to do a lot of economic analysis, but we've since gone back and done that. We have looked at 16 of the largest urban areas in the UK and how much housing and economic development could be delivered on them with the right planning system.

In terms of the reaction – it has been pretty positive. There have been discussions across the industry and with politicians. We had a roundtable with Labour in Parliament with their policy team.

We've taken it to Homes England, and to Jack Airey, the Housing and Planning olicy lead in No.10.

So we've had engagement across the political spectrum. And as I say, this was always intended to be politically agnostic. So what are the next steps? One of our recommendations is about how you could define urban regeneration in the NPPF as well as some other shorter term proposals to increase capacity and capability in local authority planning departments.

And in the longer term, Where is the talent pipeline? What’s the status of planners? Something we're really interested in and talk a lot about is policy layering which is code for complexity. Often the planning system seems to add more layers and with it complexity and contradiction. There are some longer term things that frankly will need a new government.

The government has already committed to providing surge capacity for strategic growth areas.

Really look forward to seeing that delivered. We’ve got a revised NPPF probably coming in the autumn once the LURB is enacted, then longer term a new government.

I am happy to run through the recommendations one by one or if you've read the report for people to just pick things out and ask me questions. But I am really interested in your feedback. On what works.

What should we prioritise? What are the barriers to delivery? What could be most effective? What's missing?

www.planninginlondon.com

4. Encourage proportionate decisionmaking to ensure that planning decisions are taken at the level at which their impacts are felt and with an appropriate level of expertise We believe that decisions should be made at the level at which their impacts and benefits are realised and with an appropriate level of expertise.

One of the failings of the current system is that too often decisions are taken at one level, only to be appealed (or called in) at a higher level later. This is in part driven by the system asking local authorities to determine matters that are of greater significance than to their local area alone.

Recommendations: •

•

• We want to see greater consistency in decision making based on which issues are local and which are genuinely strategic – while still maintaining the critical link with the local community.

In practice, the vast majority of decisions would still be made at the local authority level, with the largest and most complex decisions made at the strategic or combined authority level and, in exceptional circumstances, at the national level.

•

•

•

All local authority planning committee members involved in determining large, complex urban regeneration applications should be provided with rigorous and up-todate training that equips them to do so.

Harmonising devolution deals across the UK to require all city regions and combined authorities to have a spatial strategy to provide strategic planning oversight.

Above a nationally set threshold, the applicant should have the choice of referring any brownfield urban regeneration application to the strategic or combined authority, from pre-application stage, for determination. We suggest a threshold of 500 homes or 50,000 sq m of commercial development, subject to consultation.

Where this route is engaged, the applicant must commit to delivering a community consultation method statement (see below) that reflects best practice and maintains the critical link between development and the community.

In major regeneration and renewal areas planning committees should include independent members with relevant technical and industry expertise.

Delegating more smaller applications to planning officers where they are of an appropriate scale, in the context of the local authority, and in general conformity with the Development Plan.

This approach should be underpinned by monitoring the performance of planning committees (at all levels), both in terms of the proportion of decisions taken within set time limits and the proportion of decisions overturned on appeal.

>>>

Issue 127 October-December 2023

49

BRIEFING | LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM: IDEAS FOR PLANNING REFORM | MIKE MEADOWS

5. Enable development on brownfield land through national planning policy Developing previously developed land is a national policy priority. However, the approach to ‘gentle densification’ proposed in current national planning policy will make brownfield development more challenging and limit the potential of brownfield urban regeneration.

If sustainable development opportunities are to be maximised, there needs to be a step change in density on sites in accessible locations, secured through innovative planning, design and placemaking.

The prioritisation of brownfield land (over greenfield development) needs to be balanced with growing expectations of what development and developer contributions can deliver. The social value created by bringing unproductive land back into use, or through the thoughtful redevelopment of a heritage building, simply cannot be matched by greenfield development.

Canada Water Masterplan

However, the layering of planning costs, combined with future buildings and homes standards and additional taxes on residential development are making schemes more challenging to deliver and increasingly unviable. This also limits the funding available to local communities to ensure they realise the benefits of development.

It is also increasingly difficult to draw a direct link between development and the benefits delivered to the local community, when developer contributions are dominated by the Community Infrastructure Levy.

These contributions often remain unspent even after the development is completed and/or can be spent in areas away from where the development occurs. We believe that this is a significant factor in the default opposition most developments experience across the UK and is likely to be compounded by the proposed Infrastructure Levy.

>>>

Recommendations: •

•

•

DISCUSSION: Tom Dobson: If we're honest everything is just a mess at the moment. And there tends to be two kind of responses to that: what got us into this mess,? The other is what should be the practical response? We've got some practical solutions that we can all work around. Let's focus on those and do some very specific things.

The other thing that really comes out, that this is about better regulation, not deregulation. One of the things that always riles us is that authority has been saying this is about deregulation, et cetera. And actually it's about putting community at the heart which I think is really important. If you go down to Canada Water, where Mike's colleague Miles Price has spent half his life, there is that commitment to engagement.

50

Planning in London

Encouragement in policy for brownfield urban regeneration explicitly not just previously developed land Options are explored to connect communities more directly with the benefits of developments, including through the retention of Section 106 for brownfield urban regeneration schemes.

A more open dialogue is encouraged between developers, in partnership with the local authority, and communities about the potential benefits development and densification can deliver. This would form an explicit part of our proposed community consultation method statement (see below).

Pick the thing you're going to take communities with you. I think communities are at the heart of the process. However, it does seem to me that we get more opposition. Even if you think about Canada Water, which was challenged but wasn't successful.

Kings Cross was challenged and that wasn't successful, but actually the disproportionate amount of money, time and cost that goes into it despite all of the consultation with communities is unjustifiable.

Now I am fundamentally of the view that everybody has the right to make sure that the law is enforced and carried out. And you shouldn't be pivoted from doing that because we seem to be getting into a position where just objections for objections sake have the ability to delay and constantly delay.

Development resistance is really disproportionate at the moment in terms of cost. Developers want to

deliver, and the few that want to object can really delay development at great cost.

Q: Applicants are required to produce many technical reports to get an application validated on topics which are technical and should be dealt with following permission under there Building Regulations.

Planning officers are not qualified to deal with these topics. Not surprising they are overloaded and the system is gummed up. The NPPF should eliminate this.

Discussion continued…

The chairman thanked Mike and Tom and said the Forum would pursue the topic of planning reform as we approach the general election.

From Zoomers: Andrew Rogers: Very good. Tim Wacher: Very interesting discussion. n SEE also Mike Hood’s article on page 15.

ANDY ROGERS ON LAWFUL MEANINGS

ROGERS

More awful lawful meanings

Andy Rogers is a planning consultant and former director in architects The Manser Practice

A judgment that assessment of an area’s character is not limited to physical appearance or visual impact has consequences says Andy Rogers It is a well-established principle of English law that statutes are made by Parliament and interpreted by the Courts, where precedents and previous rulings are always considered. This applies particularly to the planning system, but with the complication that there are intervening levels of interpretation in the shape of Local Planning Authorities and then the Planning Inspectorate at appeal. So laws and rules (and their meanings) are determined by planning officers and committees,

by Inspectors at appeal, or by the Courts though Judicial Review.

Indeed, the materiality of an earlier decision on a similar application to a consideration of a later application is well-established. In Guildford Borough Council v Secretary of State for Community and Local Government [2009] Mr Justice Cranston stated: “Moreover, it seems to me that, in the exercise of planning judgment a relevant consideration may be the local authority’s own approach to similar applications in the locality. Public law principles demand consistency in the application of policies by public bodies such as local planning authorities, unless there are good reasons to the contrary. Consistency is required as a broad principle of good administration and derives from general principles of fairness in the treatment of citizens.”

www.planninginlondon.com

Alone from Jargon born to rescue Law, From precedent, grave hum, and formal saw!

To strip chicanery of its vain pretence, And marry Common Law to Common Sense! – Robert Lloyd, 1762 So here, in the interests of consistency, are two recent decisions that may have clarified the meaning of words for the benefit of those using the planning system.

First, the thorny problem of what is a building.

Plenty of judgments exist to establish that a caravan (defined by s29(1) of the 1960 Caravan Sites Act), however permanent but nevertheless capable of removal, is not a building in planning terms.

And the same now applies to a shipping container, even when it may in place for many years: so it has been ruled that siting of containers on land does not constitute development (although it might however be ruled as a change of use).

And furthermore, while a flat is not a “dwellinghouse” in planning terms (particularly with regard to permitted development rights), it can be defined as a building inasmuch as it is part of a larger building. While another recent decision has ruled that “a block of flats” cannot be units

grouped together on one level but must comprise “a building which is divided horizontally and consists of separate and self-contained premises constructed for use for the purposes of a dwellinghouse, and any ancillary facilities constructed solely for use by occupiers of the building” (as defined, believe it or not, by Parliament under the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development and Miscellaneous Amendments) (England) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020).

Second even more bizarrely a Court of Appeal judge has ruled that development that does not change the exterior fabric or appearance of a building can nevertheless be said to harm the area’s character and appearance. In Kazalbash v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities [2023], Sir Keith Lindblom has determined that assessment of an area’s character is not limited to physical appearance or visual impact but relates also to the general existing building lines, set-back distances, plot widths, established uses and so on. This, it seems to me could mean the end of prior approval permitted development rights, since almost any change under that legislation could be said to materially alter the character of an area or building.

And finally, just to emphasise that context (and reference to adopted policy) may well be important in weighing up the balance in planning decisions, here is a useful comment on what may be considered material in planning: Lord Justice Schiemann in Thames Heliport PLC v. London Borough of Tower Hamlets [1996] ruled that “The materiality of something will depend on the context in which it is being examined. One must always ask: material for what purposes?

If I go shopping and put a pound of butter in my basket but just outside the shop someone swaps the pound of butter for a pound of margarine there is no material change so far as the weight of the basket which I have to carry on the journey home is concerned but there is a material change when it comes to tomorrow's breakfast.”

So now we know. n

Issue 127 October-December 2023

51

PARKYN’S PIECES

PARKYN’S PIECES

Art for our sake – a lesson from Neil Parkyn in art and architecture RIGHT: Henry Moore screen - Time & Life Building Bond Street/Conduit Street by architect Michael Rosenauer

Neil Parkyn was an architect/planner for YRM Partnership Ltd. This from his archive of impressive writings

Neil Parkyn is a retired architect and urban planner living in central France

52

Planning in London

Put an architect and an artist on the same desert island. Get through Sue Lawley's records before sundown, mix a brace of well-designed tropical brews and await results.

This may sound a perfect recipe for one of those dense psychodramas requiring two characters, three planks, and plenty of patience from the captive audience, but here is actually the meat of genuine debate ranging around the prickly subject: just how do you bring buildings and art together?

The matter is certainly topical, what with the Arts Council and its one percent for art scheme, and more pronouncements from those such as Pentagram's Theo Crosby who seem to have been pegging out positions on the subject for several hundred years. It might even surface on the next GCSE question paper, alongside all the usual comparisons of cathedrals and book covers. Like all these trite lecturettes, everyone is there with a shout - practising architects who have had good or bad times in the commissioning of artworks for their buildings, artists who concluded that the only artistic licence they were allowed was the honour of fitting into a strong-minded architecture and patrons that somehow ended up with the right blend of art and building.

As a topic for the post-crudite moments in the office's favoured wine bar ("More of the red bottle for our friend Vincent here …”) it does have the merit of bringing any number of historical and holiday examples together, as the argument deepens into a search for hard examples of where the artist and architect got it right.

If you listen carefully amid the crunch of celery, you will hear the familiar references to Scandinavia - how the pension banks give X% or Y% of their profits to commission artworks, how there must be at least 1.5 standard statues per 10 000 population, how the State supports its favourite pens and brushes.

Or someone will roll out the Great Corporations and their record of enlightened patronage - Olivetti, IBM, Cummins -

which have crowned their buildings with artworks of the highest order. Better than many a public art collection. There is even a certain style of architecture which came into being with the express purpose of providing a foil for the classy artwork, with courts crying out for the Brancusi, Moore or Frink and the lobbies longing for the grand presence of a Rothko or de Kooning. It was as if to say money can buy machines, but as a mature corporation we've moved on to higher things, to patronage no less princely than any medic could muster.

Coming up fast on the rails however were architects who considered that their buildings were quite rich enough not to require any further embellishment by men from the A-Z of Art. The record of architects in commissioning art for their buildings is not impressive. Dire in fact.

There are as always some very honourable exceptions, but more typical it the costume jewellery approach, where shopping precinct, cathedral or conference centre cannot escape without its dose of applied art, hoisted up, ragbolted and rainwashed like some giant, grubby butterfly Before we are all much older there will be a thriving industry in the refurbishment of this section of the British Artistic Heritage.

If the block themselves are facelifted, why stop there? This stockpile of good intentions, cast concrete and twisted metal is a reminder that you can't spice up poor architecture by wheeling in the art. Or superglue something large and colourful onto the flank wall where shopping floorspace rules within and hope that your civic duty is done.

The only approach which produces lasting quality - and is taken to heart by the public - is one in which the artist/architect takes up the whole problem, not just tinkers with the left-overs.

If this sounds vague and academic there are good, hard examples of the process working out. If you have a taste for history, a gentle survey of the Fountains of Rome, with Respigi in the head-

phones and an eye for how the locals use the seats, public space and water. There isn't any dotted line showing where the art begins and the pavement ends. Modernists will find as delightful a result in the fountains and squares of Lawrence Halprin, the American landscape architect, who uses water, levels, routes and surfaces with such panache that it can make the lunchtime sandwich a feast. You don't stick a plate, a name and an artist, or even a price, onto such an ensemble. It's a stage, a setting for public life, and great fun into the bargain. We all have our favourite examples from Europe of high-quality urban artworks, pieces of city, which can't be put into any gallery. Bernini, Michaelangelo and the gang would salute them all.

Where did we go wrong? It would be easy to blame the merchantile mentality in which art becomes a priced item in a Bill of Quantities, something that can come or go according to the latest cost plan, although it is amusing to write a clause requiring 25m3 of Henry Moore or similarapproved. It misses thanks to the spirit of enthusiasm, quirkiness and passion which informs the great collectors and patrons of art, leading to such amazing assemblies as the Burrell in Glasgow, a marvellous building stimulated by a merchant magpie's taste for so many things that took his fancy.

Not something you can plan for, specify or tie down in a cobweb of clauses.

You could clobber the client instead with the accusation that he has collected artworks according to the status of their artist, so that his building becomes a walk between sites for the famous

names. But this is unjust; there is proper pride in ownership, and the pleasure for him in working with a living artist to develop a scheme which is custom-designed in the true sense of the word.

Take away the building and the artwork is diminished, and vice versa.

What we get wrong is the thinking. It may date back from the old student days when as architects in training we would be thrown such assignments as design a house for a famous artist.

Today it might be replaced by the task of planning a pad for a famous futures broker or an institute for procurement studies.

Artists as far as we knew then, were that lot up on the top floor of the next studio block, given to undisciplined behaviour and coloured shoelaces. We indulged in soft pencil work at life drawing classes, affected sky washes and a controlled Bohemian style in some grant-aided garret. Even wrote essays that pulled in the right names and dates. Joint projects with the art mob were rare, even rarer once the academics started clipping degree status onto the art courses. Hardly surprising that once in practice we could not work comfortably with artists. They must have found us in turn rigid and bossy.

When you remember the phrase making a niche, you get closer to the right spirit. Instead of literally forming spaces for statues as the Renaissance architects would have done, we can interpret the term as creating opportunities for the artist to flower. Perhaps the prime site in Docklands, more competitions, more phone calls.

Art for our sake. n LEFT: The Burrell, drawing by architect Barry Gasson of the North Gallery, known as 'The Walk in the Woods' at The Burrell Collection, Glasgow, Scotland.

Designed by Barry Gasson, John Meunier and Brit Andresen, was described

by Historic Scotland as: “An outstanding bespoke museum commission of international importance, and an important example of Structuralist Tendency in architecture in the second half of the 20th century, emphasising the users' experience and the sense of place, and, in particular, making the most of the interior and exterior interface with the surrounding landscape.”

First published as The new patrons Parkyn, Neil. RSA Journal; London Vol. 140, Iss. 5427, (Mar 1, 1992)

www.planninginlondon.com

Issue 127 October-December 2023

53

LONDON'S OFFICE MARKET | TOM PETRYSHEN

Trends in flex space, office use and hybrid models Redesigning office spaces and implementing new policies are vital to make the most of team's time in the office says Tom Petryshen

Tom Petryshen is VP, Growth & Analytics, Vancouver, Canada

54

Planning in London

From diminished office utilisation rates brought about by the Pandemic, to the transition towards hybrid work models, and the impending fire sales aimed at unloading heavily leveraged office towers, it is tempting to declare the demise of the traditional office space. Indeed, the old ways of work and the edifices that once housed them may appear as relics of a bygone era. However, there is a burgeoning demand for a novel form of office accommodation that has stepped into the void and thrived as a result.

Flexible workspace, known by various monikers such as serviced offices, coworking spaces, or managed office facilities, has emerged as a pragmatic solution for businesses in pursuit of adaptable work arrangements that seamlessly adjust to the ebb and flow of their operations. Simultaneously, it has become a lifeline for landlords grappling with empty office towers scattered across the major centres.

Whilst certain cities such as London and Sydney have witnessed increased utilization rates as employees return to the office for three or more days a week, thanks to company-wide mandates, other urban hubs like San Francisco have seen their main business thoroughfares grow desolate, with office towers selling at a mere fraction of their pre-pandemic values.

However, even as traditional landlords grapple with the challenges of leasing their existing spaces, flexible operators like International Workplace Group (IWG), Servcorp, and local newcomers such as Huckletree have found success by offering spaces and desks on short-term contracts to businesses. While WeWork has encountered some setbacks due to governance issues and high debt levels – far from ideal in a market marked by high interest rates – IWG has reported positive operating profits for the first half of the year, driven by the opening of a record number of new spaces in the coming year.

The truth is Flex Operators around London and globally are finding success based on new management agreements that share the risks and profits with landlords that reduces the operating costs for the operator making it a win for everyone.

Looking ahead, predicting the future of office space extends beyond simple supply and demand principles – it requires a nuanced analysis. In this article, we'll explore the past, present, and potential future of office spaces.

Available Flex Space in London Grows by 37 per cent Having tracked available flexible floorspace across our platform since the early days of the pandemic we saw inventory increase dramatically throughout the first six months of the pandemic and then reach a peak in late 2021 before finally falling in the 2nd half of 2022 as businesses who had

remained remote began their office search.

However, as inflation hit double digits across the UK and the war in Ukraine dragged into a second year, inventory began to rise again to match post pandemic highs. In fact, since the start of the year, the amount of available space across London increased 37 per cent to 4,878,500 sq. ft.

While a significant amount of availability can be attributed to lower demand, we’ve also seen net new space added to the platform from operators opening new higher-end offices especially in sought after locations, like Mayfair, Paddington, and Fitzrovia.

New competition from traditional landlords who are now being forced to offer far more flexible options on short term arrangements, has also increased competition in the market.

Today, businesses have more options than ever before.

With U.K. economic growth projected to be flat for the rest of the year as tighter monetary policy slows expansion (according to the Asset & Wealth Management Investment Strategy Group (ISG) at Goldman Sachs), economists believe that the country could retract and officially hit recession levels over the next two quarters. If so, we believe we’ll continue to see inventory increase as businesses limit their office expansion and work remote. If this holds true and demand continues to slow, we expect to see more available space across our platform in the coming quarters.

Average Desk Rates Continue to Slide Across London Though the pandemic has had a profound impact on desk rates across the UK, especially in the first two years, rates across London showed signs of recovery in mid 2022 as the UK moved on from pandemic mandates. However, any gains were short lived as the fallout from Brexit began to bite, inflation and interest rates rose and uncertainty kept businesses from making commitments. Even with all the added flexibility of serviced offices, such as a shorter contract term has not derisked the move to a new office for some.

As the economy came to a halt and hampered demand, operators have been forced to offer deals pushing prices down further from their post pandemic peak in June 2022 to £612 a desk, an overall drop of 3.6 per cent from the start of the year.

However, not all areas have been affected in the same way as desk rates in North and South London have dropped upwards of 5.5 per cent as businesses seek out higher quality spaces closer to Central London. Though West London saw a healthy increase of 20 per cent in supply, desk rates only increased marginally by 0.6 per cent to £475 thanks to new spaces in areas within close proximity of Central London.

When it comes to success, location, transport and building amenities tend to drive the price with Central London driving the highest rates and offering the most stability for operators.

www.planninginlondon.com

Office Utilisation Rates Rise But Not Back To fully understand the current market, you need to look beyond the rising vacancy rates, now sitting at 9.4 per cent at the end of Q2 according to JLL. While the vacancy rates may provide some insight on the demand site, it doesn’t include the floors of leased space sitting empty across the city. Rather, you need to dig a bit deeper to look at occupancy utilisation rates to understand where vacancy rates may go and the impending challenges facing today’s landlords.

While businesses were once happy to lease an additional 25 per cent more as a buffer for future growth, the vast majority of businesses today are looking to offload this space either through subleasing or dropping it all together when their lease expires.

With hybrid work models becoming more entrenched and little to no signs that vacancy rates will improve, keeping this space is just another unnecessary expense on the bottom line.

While rising office vacancy rates may shed some light on the current state of the commercial office market, one needs to dig deeper to look at actual utilisation to understand the current challenges.

According to a recent survey by XY Sense, a Melbourne, Australia based occupancy sensor & workplace analytics platform, found that occupancy utilisation rates across the UK are the highest in the world at 52 per cent (compared to 20 per cent globally) up 20 per cent over the past year. However, the caveat

Issue 127 October-December 2023

>>>

55

LONDON'S OFFICE MARKET | TOM PETRYSHEN

>>> is that occupancy rates are still 50 per cent below pre-pandemic levels. And with return to office mandates failing to drive employees back in any meaningful way, there’s little chance we’ll ever see occupancy rates return to pre-pandemic levels.

Considering this, it becomes imperative for local governments and urban planners to proactively prepare for a drastically different future. They must facilitate adaptable zoning regulations, allowing for the repurposing of underutilized office spaces.

An example of this paradigm shift can be witnessed in Calgary, Canada, where the vacancy rate exceeds 30 per cent.

Forced to Take proactive measures, the city has initiated the conversion of vacant offices into residences and, in some cases, rezoned the spaces to cater to diverse commercial needs such as vertical farming operations.

Businesses Seek Location, Quality & Amenities While supply has grown and desk rates are down for the 5th consecutive quarter, there are some bright spots in the market. Specifically, operators in class-A offices with high end Desk Rates Slide 2% in London as Inventory Surges 26% On the back of an increase in new inventory resulting from a range of new buildings and existing operators adding more inventory to Rubberdesk, available space increased 26% while the number of o ces increased 17% to 3,929 o ces, the largest increase in supply since 2020. This new supply in combination with softer economic conditions led to a 2% drop in the monthly average desk rate from December 2022 to £622.

Flex O ce Space at a Glance Vacant O ces

Vacant Space (sqft)

3,929

4,487,350

16.7%

Central London continues to lead the premium o ce market with median monthly prices of £695 per desk, driven largely by high-demand areas in the City of London such as Mayfair, Marylebone, King's Cross, and Holborn, and a ight to quality trend as businesses seek desirable workspaces to bring teams together.

Median O ce Rate

89,747

£622

25.8%

While South and North London continue to provide the best value with a median desk rate of £240 and £350 per person, inventory and variety of quality are limited.

Though desk rates were down across most larger o ce sizes, smaller spaces for teams of 5-15 rose 1% to £589 and £597 respectively.

Median O ce Rate /Person /Month & Trendline

25.8%

Vacant Workstations

-2.0% Relative to December 2022

Vacant Flex Space (sqft) over Time Vacant Floor Space (sqft)

Median O ce Price /Person /Month

5M 750 4M

700

650

3M

600 Jun 2020

Jun 2021 Dec 2020

Jun 2022 Dec 2021

Jun 2…

Dec 2022

2M Jun 16, 2020 Jun 19, 2021 Jun 22, 2022 Jun… Dec 17, 2020 Dec 20, 2021 Dec 23, 2022

Median O ce Rate /Person /Month by Location 750

£695 500

£475

£457 £350

250

£240

0 Central

West

East

North

South

Median O ce Rate /Person /Month by O ce Capacity 750

500

£575

£589

£597

£629

a) 1-4 Pax

b) 5-10 Pax

c) 11-15 Pax

d) 16-25 Pax

£683

£696

e) 26-50 Pax

f) Over 50 Pax

250

0

Enquire Online or Call 0800 699 0655

56

Planning in London

Source of Data: Rubberdesk Listings of Available O ce Space. June 2023

1

amenities are in high demand. While budgets may dictate the price for some businesses, we’re seeing growing demand for attractive office spaces and fewer discounts being offered by operators in these spaces.

In addition, businesses leaving a more traditional office space have sought out flexible offices that have plenty of accessible meeting rooms to accommodate collaboration and ultimately increase utilisation across their space on a consistent basis.

While meeting space is important, according to XY Sense, not all spaces, especially larger ones are utilised equally. In fact, their research shows that enclosed meeting rooms are the most requested space type while larger conference rooms experience consistently low occupancy and utilisation relative to capacity.

In addition, breakout spaces on open floors are rarely used for collaboration.

So if landlords and businesses are truly interested to create spaces that are useful, they’ll need to redesign current spaces and allow for more enclosed additional meeting spaces.

In-Office, Remote or Hybrid?

While a few high profile companies including Goldman Sachs and Netflix have demanded that their employees return to the office full time, many others have come to the conclusion that listening to their staff, who are increasingly demanding flexible work arrangements, and their CFOs who are excited about the opportunity to cut their second largest expense have come to the conclusion that a hybrid model is great for everyone.

Whether staff are required to work 2, 3 or 4 days a week from the office, many business leaders have seen and realised the gains from happier employees, even if it has come at the expense of afterwork drinks and the traditional office culture.

Despite the growth in acceptance, this doesn’t mean that everyone has it figured out and has the magic formulae for future success. In fact, I’d argue that it will take up to 3-5 years for businesses to test and define different models that best fit their business. While one model today may be right for today’s market, it may have a negative impact as the labour market tightens and the race for talent results in greater flexibility.

Ensuring a productive office environment is crucial, even with a hybrid model. Redesigning office spaces and implementing new policies are vital to make the most of team's time in the office. Collaboration areas and meeting rooms have become more significant than ever before.

Offices without these amenities will struggle to create an appealing workplace for today's employees. Why waste time commuting to an empty office when the same work could have been done from home? n

Rates in Central London Hold due to Higher Demand

City of London O ce Rates Remain Near All-Time Low

As the largest region in London, Central London encompasses Victoria in the West to King's Cross in the North and Southwark in the South giving businesses the widest variety of o ce space including size, quality, and price points of anywhere in the UK.

As the market continues to weather challenging economic conditions, desk rates throughout the City of London fell 3% to £679 as inventory climbed 37% to 952,900 sq. ft.

Flex O ce Space at a Glance

Though desk rates across the region fell 1% to £695 per desk, it was a different story in high-demand areas which saw rates increase 5% in Mayfair and a whopping 40% in Marylebone to £925 and £780 per desk respectively. Other areas faired less well with desk rates in Victoria down 20% to £650 per desk followed by Fitzrovia and Holborn which were both down 10% to £750 and £676 while SOHO fell 5% to £807 per desk.

Vacant O ces

Vacant Space (sqft)

2,853

3,392,200

18.4%

O ces near the East side of the city near Liverpool Street station and Tower Hill continue to attract a premium price with a median desk rate of £732 and £725 per desk, while businesses looking to save can nd more affordable o ce space further West near Farringdon and Chancery Lane stations with median prices at £552 and £550 per desk.

29.7%

Vacant Workstations

Median O ce Rate

67,844

£695

29.7%

-0.7%

With over 3.4 million sq. ft. of available exible o ce space, an increase of 30% since the start of the year, larger businesses looking for a location to bring the team together have more options than even with enterprise o ces for 50 or more staff up 38% while rates per desk fell by 7% to £759. Smaller o ces for teams of 5-15 saw a slight price increase to £684 and £674 per desk.

Relative to December 2022

Vacant Space (sqft)

779

952,900

20.0%

While prices fell across most o ce sizes, desk rates for 10-15 person o ces rose 4% to £676 per desk even though inventory grew by 36%. Businesses needing more space will nd more options than ever as the amount of available space for teams over 50 people jumped 50% to 445,150 sq. ft. on the back of a 7% decrease in price to £732 per desk.

Median O ce Rate /Person /Month & Trendline

Median O ce Rate /Person /Month & Trendline

Flex O ce Space at a Glance Vacant O ces

36.9%

Vacant Workstations

Median O ce Rate

19,058

£679

36.9%

-3.0% Relative to December 2022

Vacant Flex Space (sqft) over Time

Vacant Flex Space (sqft) over Time Median O ce Price /Person /Month

Vacant Floor Space (sqft)

Vacant Floor Space (sqft)

Median O ce Price /Person /Month

1.2M

4M

800

800

1M

3M 750 800K

2M

700 600K

700 1M

650 Jun 2020

Jun 2021 Dec 2020

Jun 2022 Dec 2021

0 Jun 16, 2020 Jun 19, 2021 Jun 22, 2022 Jun 2…

Dec 17, 2020 Dec 20, 2021 Dec 23, 2022

Jun 2…

Dec 2022

600 Jun 2020

Jun 2021 Dec 2021

750

£732

£925 £780

£750

£702

Dec 2022

Median O ce Rate /Person /Month by Station

Median O ce Rate /Person /Month by Location 1K

£807

400K Jun 16, 2020 Jun 19, 2021 Jun 22, 2022 Jun 2…

Dec 17, 2020 Dec 20, 2021 Dec 23, 2022

Jun 2022

Dec 2020

£725

£711

£674

£618

500

£676

£650

500

£644

£595

£552

£550

£600 250 0

0 Mayfair

SOHO

Marylebone

Fitzrovia

King's Cross

Holborn

Victoria

Southwark

Liverpool Street

Paddington

Aldgate Tower Hill

Median O ce Rate /Person /Month by O ce Capacity 750

£684

£675

£674

Blackfriars

Farringdon

Bank

Barbican

Chancery Lane

Median O ce Rate /Person /Month by O ce Capacity 750

£759

£720

£670

£650

£675

£694

£708

£732

b) 5-10 Pax

c) 11-15 Pax

d) 16-25 Pax

e) 26-50 Pax

f) Over 50 Pax

£700

500

500

250

250

0

0 a) 1-4 Pax

b) 5-10 Pax

Enquire Online or Call 0800 699 0655

c) 11-15 Pax

d) 16-25 Pax

e) 26-50 Pax

a) 1-4 Pax

f) Over 50 Pax

2

Source of Data: Rubberdesk Listings of Available O ce Space. June 2023

Enquire Online or Call 0800 699 0655

Desk Rates Hold in East London Despite Increasing Supply

South London Remains Most Affordable Region

Despite some volatility in Q1, prices in East London ended the 2nd quarter where they started at $450 per desk per month. However, not all regions are created equally. While rates in Shoreditch and Wapping were up 30% and 13% to £762 and £621 per desk, o ce rates in Spital elds, one of the more in-demand areas of East London, were down 10% to £565 per desk.

With inventory up 24% and prices down 9% since the start of 2023, there's never been more opportunities for businesses to nd a new home in South London.

Flex O ce Space at a Glance Vacant O ces

Vacant Space (sqft)

426

527,500

15.8%

With quick access to the city centre via the Elizabeth line, Whitechapel and Canary Wharf continue to provide great value with monthly desk rates of £490 and £432 per person respectively.

Across the board, smaller o ces for 1-4 people saw a 24% price decrease to a median rate of £375 per desk while larger o ces for teams of 50 people saw a 7% decrease to £496 per desk per month from the start of the year.

Vacant Workstations

Median O ce Rate

10,550

£450

14.0%

Relative to December 2022

Median O ce Rate /Person /Month & Trendline

Vacant Flex Space (sqft) over Time

Vacant O ces

Vacant Space (sqft)

183

73,250

34.6%

While options for larger teams of 25 or more are limited, South London is an ideal location for a smaller o ce for teams under 15 with with prices down as much as 15% since the start of the year. In fact, with a median rate of £232, some of the best deals can be found for o ces of teams of 5-10 people.

0.0%

After falling for most of 2022, available space gained 14% to end the half-year at 527,500 sq. ft.

Median O ce Rate /Person /Month & Trendline

Flex O ce Space at a Glance

The Burroughs of Merton and Sutton continue to provide the most options with rates at £222 and £213, well below the regional median of £240 per desk.

Greenwich saw the largest price decrease dropping 37% from £580 to £367 per desk. Finally, Wandsworth also provides great options, especially for larger teams of 16 or more with a median price of £350.

14.0%

3

Source of Data: Rubberdesk Listings of Available O ce Space. June 2023

23.8%

Vacant Workstations

Median O ce Rate

1,465

240

23.8%

-8.7% Relative to December 2022

Vacant Flex Space (sqft) over Time

Median O ce Price /Person /Month

Vacant Floor Space (sqft)

80K Median O ce Price /Person /Month

Vacant Floor Space (sqft)

600

500

700K

60K 400

550

40K

600K 300

500

20K

500K 200

450 Jun 2020

400K

Jun 2021 Dec 2020

400 Jun 2020

Jun 2021 Dec 2020

Jun 2022 Dec 2021

Jun…

Jun 2022 Dec 2021

0 Jun 16, 2020 Jun 19, 2021 Jun 22, 2022 Jun… Dec 17, 2020 Dec 20, 2021 Dec 23, 2022

Jun… Dec 2022

Jun 16, 2020 Jun 19, 2021 Jun 22, 2022 Jun 2…

Dec 17, 2020 Dec 20, 2021 Dec 23, 2022

Dec 2022

Median O ce Rate /Person /Month by Region

Median O ce Rate /Person /Month by Location 400 750

£400

£367

£762 £621

500

£565

£350 £250

200

£490

£490

£450

£432

250

0

£194

Kingston upon Thames

Wandsworth Greenwich

Wapping

Spital elds

Haggerston

Whitechapel

Hackney

Canary Wharf

£227

£222

£220

£350

0 Shoreditch

£249

Stratford

Lambeth Bromley

Merton Croydon

Lewisham

Canning Town

Median O ce Rate /Person /Month by O ce Capacity

Median O ce Rate /Person /Month by O ce Capacity 400

£400

600

£350

£500

400

£375

£522

£496 200

£393

£369

£250

£232 £117

200

0 a) 1-4 Pax

0 a) 1-4 Pax

Enquire Online or Call 0800 699 0655

b) 5-10 Pax

c) 11-15 Pax

d) 16-25 Pax

Source of Data: Rubberdesk Listings of Available O ce Space. June 2023

www.planninginlondon.com

e) 26-50 Pax

b) 5-10 Pax

c) 11-15 Pax

d) 16-25 Pax

e) 26-50 Pax

f) Over 50 Pax

4

Enquire Online or Call 0800 699 0655

Source of Data: Rubberdesk Listings of Available O ce Space. June 2023

Issue 127 October-December 2023

6

57

UNSPENT S106 CONTRIBUTIONS | CHRIS GAUNT

Unspent s106 contributions and affordable housing – a London perspective Section 106 payments for affordable housing are important though they are a drop in the ocean in terms of what is required, says Chris Gaunt

Chris Gaunt is senior associate in Rosling King’s real estate group

58

Planning in London

London has an acute housing shortage including a significant housing affordability crisis, like so many other cities around the UK. To try and combat this housing crisis, the 2021 London Plan1 set a target for the completion of circa 52,000 new housing units per year over a ten-year period. With 50 per cent of these to be affordable homes that equates to 26,000 new affordable housing units per year required. This compares with the Greater London Authority’s (GLA) 2017 Strategic Housing Market Assessment of some 14,000 homes per year.

Figures from Government show that only an average of 35,738 new housing units for the four years to 2023 were completed, with 18,722 “genuinely affordable” homes being commenced in London in the year 2021/222.

In their most recent report, figures published by London Assembly Housing Committee (October 20223) show that just 10,252 affordable homes were completed in London in the year 2021-22, against the 26,000 target. That’s almost a staggering 40 per cent below what is needed each year.

Earlier this month, a report 4 from the Home Builders Federation (HBF) indicates that of the Local Authorities who replied to their Freedom of Information request, a total of £1.4 billion in unspent s.106 developer contributions are being held.

These cover not only affordable housing of course, but include contributions towards education provision, roads and other infrastructure, but of this sum, a total of £283m was specifically for affordable housing contributions. Two London boroughs were within the top five in the country with the largest amount of unspent affordable housing contributions, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea with £20.4m and Royal Borough of Greenwich with £10.8m.

Whilst s.106 contributions should of course be spent, the truth is these sums almost pale into insignificance when viewed against projected development costs of the sheer number of affordable homes likely to be required. National Housing Federation calculations referenced in the HBF report suggest that £283m could fund 3400 homes for social rent. A valuable contribution but nothing like the scale of development required.

According to GLA research, over a 10-year period, the cost to develop the estimated 325,000 affordable homes required is £74.5 billion, that’s an average of £7.5 billion per year.

A central government grant of £4.82bn for the period 201623 and a further £4bn for the period 2021-26, of which £3.4bn has been allocated to deliver 29,456 affordable homes, has been

Section 106 Agreements and unspent developer contributions in England & Wales

promised which equates to an average grant of £111,627 per affordable unit.

Whilst these are significant sums, the same GLA research indicates that the average subsidy requirement is estimated to be around £220,000 per home. This funding need can be plugged through a combination of s.106 contributions, ‘cross-subsidy’ generated from the sale of market sale homes built by affordable housing providers and the government grant. On the above figures though, there is still likely to be a significant gap remaining.

HBF pose the question: Why haven’t s.106 affordable housing contributions been spent? As shown above, this is only part of the issue.

Whilst each s.106 agreement is different, generally they will include individual requirements as to how contributions are spent as well as expiry dates which limits the time available to spend contributions. Until relatively recently there were pooling obligations, meaning no more than five obligations could be pooled together for the provision of any single infrastructure project or type of infrastructure. Designed to encourage local

planning authorities to use Community Infrastructure Levy rather than planning obligations to pay for local projects, the impact was often to make it difficult to gather sufficient funding from across different obligation “pots” for the facilitating infrastructure needed to deliver affordable housing within the timescales the s.106 agreements permitted.

High inflation and rising interest rates, together with ongoing uncertainty around the housing market’s long-term ability to cross-subsidise affordable housing delivery are impacting on viability assessments. Given viability challenges, the provision of monies for affordable housing often loses out to other funding heads, such as education, road infrastructure and other equally important areas – where the local planning authority cannot get all it needs it does, of course, need to prioritise and get what it can.

Added to viability challenges, multiple competing demands across those local authorities with housing stock, including caps on social rent levels are further reducing available monies for investment in new affordable housing. One estimate suggests that the income available to local authority landlords in London is set to reduce by nearly £600 million over the next five years.

Identifying key priority areas and further interventions points, London Councils has raised the following action points for continued affordable house building which we suggest would not only benefit Local Authority developers but the wider development sector5: • Increasing grant rates to cover a higher proportion of development costs and increase the delivery of affordable homes; • Allowing Councils to retain 100 per cent of the Right to Buy (RtB) receipts on a permanent basis rather than the current two year trial period; • Allow Councils greater flexibility in spending. The cap on expenditure for development costs should be raised from 40 per cent to 50 per cent, and local authorities should be allowed to match RtB receipts with other forms of grant, including affordable housing programme grant funding; • Relax Affordable Homes Programme grant funding rules to enable regeneration that could grow overall housing supply through making better use of land; • Targeted investment can be guided towards areas with significant potential for value uplift that would provide new crosssubsidy opportunities for affordable housing development. s.106 payments for affordable housing are important however, they are a drop in the ocean in terms of what is required, both funding-wise and in relation to processes, to get sufficient affordable housing developed for the Greater London area. n FOOTNOTES 1 london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/the_london_plan_2021.pdf 2 Mayor smashes housing record with 18,700 affordable homes started | London City Hall 3 Affordable Housing Monitor 2022 | London City Hall 4 https://www.hbf.co.uk/news/section-106-report/ 5 Debate: Delivering new housing supply, June 2023 | London Councils For further information please contact Chris Gaunt at Rosling King LLP on chris.gaunt@rkllp.com or 020 7246 8067.

Chris Gaunt is a Senior Associate in Rosling King’s Real Estate Group. His clients include developers, banks, corporate clients and individuals. He has extensive experience of a wide range of real estate transactions and has a particular specialism in negotiating and drafting planning agreements.

Rosling King LLP is a London-based law firm specialising in serving the needs of financial institutions, corporates and individuals. For more information please visit www.rkllp.com.

www.planninginlondon.com

THE 20 LAS WHO HOLD THE MOST IN UNSPENT S106 CONTRIBUTIONS

COUNCIL

REGION

AMOUNT HELD UNSPENT

1

South Gloucestershire Council

South West

£58,241,004

2

Leeds City Council

Yorkshire and the Humber

£57,858,664

3

London Borough of Greenwich

London

£57,223,192

4

London Borough of Lambeth

London

£49,893,801

Royal Borough of Kensington and

London

£44,038,840

5

Chelsea 6

Rushcliffe Borough Council

East Midlands

£42,229,907

7

London Borough of

London

£39,623,399

Hammersmith and Fulham 8

Newcastle City Council

North East

£31,927,136

9

Test Valley Borough Council

South East

£27,900,647

10

Bracknell Forest Council

South East

£27,771,338

11

London Borough of Islington

London

£26,501,540

12

Derby City Council

East Midlands

£25,281,423

13

Cardiff City Council

Wales

£23,272,403

14

Surrey County Council

South East

£23,186,000

15

Wakefield Council

Yorkshire and the Humber

£21,618,274

Cheshire West and Chester

North West

£20,920,636

Wigan Council

North West

£20,356,659

Vale of White Horse District

South East

£18,223,919

16

Council 17 18

Council 19

London Borough of Hounslow

London

£18,177,781

20

Mid Sussex District Council

South East

£18,117,357

AFFORDABLE HOUSING Total unspent affordable housing contributions among respondents = £283.3M Average unspent affordable housing contributions per LA who responded = £1.7M Total unspent affordable housing contributions in England and Wales if scaling up to all LAs = £566.6M THE TOP 5 LAS WITH THE LARGEST AMOUNT OF UNSPENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONTRIBUTIONS WERE:

1. Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea - £20.4m 2. Leeds City Council - £17.2m 3. Oxford City Council - £12.3m 4. London Borough of Greenwich - £10.8m 5. Shropshire Council - £9.8m

£567m in unspent affordable housing contributions could fund:

6,800 HOMES FOR SOCIAL RENT

This figure is based on average grant values for new Affordable Homes.3

Although Westminster City Council did not respond to our FOI request, the council has previously confirmed that it has more than £240m held in its Affordable Housing Fund account. These monies have been collected in lieu of Affordable Housing onsite.4

Issue 127 October-December 2023

59

WORLD CAR FREE DAY | GINA BUGTEN DINESEN

Promoting active travel To mark World Car Free day Gina Bugten Dinesen draws on her experience of living and working in Scandinavia to demonstrate how far Norway and Denmark have come encouraging, facilitating and seeing the considerable benefit of active travel

Gina Bugten Dinesen is an achitectural assistant with Boyer (part of Leaders Romans Group)

60

Planning in London

22 September was World Car Free Day. It’s a day when all around the world, towns and cities allow people to experience streets free of motor traffic.

Encouraging active travel We need to reduce emissions for the benefit of pollution levels and net zero, and to encourage people to live more healthy lives by encouraging cycling over driving.

Evidence shows that quieter streets with less traffic are overwhelmingly popular, and support for this increases once schemes have been implemented and people see the benefits. This is backed up by research from Cycling UK. Given the cost-saving advantages, this knowledge should be welcomed by local authorities and central government alike.

In Denmark economic analysis is a mandatory decision-mak-

ing tool for all major infrastructure projects funded by the State.

The Danish Ministry of Transport follows a manual for the delivery of economic analysis in the transport area, calculating the cost-benefits of cycling infrastructure and cycling measures.

Below is a table of the unit prices for cycling, cars and walking for 2018.

The table illustrates that when all factors are calculated, society gains DKK 4.79 (€0.64) per kilometre cycled, primarily due to the large health benefit, whereas it costs society DKK 5.29 (€0.71) for every kilometre driven by car.

This means that the economic cost of cycling is much lower than the cost of car transport (if the car contains fewer than two

passengers). On the basis of these figures, Denmark saves 10 DKK per kilometer when people cycle rather than drive. \So, it is ironic that, according to Cycling UK, funding for cycling and walking here in the UK was cut by 75 per cent in May 2023. And therefore, local authorities should consider that one of the most cost-efficient ways to create safer cycling and walking routes (and to meet government targets) is the creation of ‘liveable neighbourhoods’ – the very initiative that Rishi Sunak’s July speech objected so strongly to.

How data can support political actions – Copenhagen and Trondheim Using research data to make better decisions is key.

Architects and urban designers know the powers of this tool. A successful example of where data has influenced political actions is Copenhagen.

Copenhagen is a city which has changed dramatically over the past 40 years. It used to be dominated by cars but now citizens mostly move around on bicycles or on foot. Evidence shows that when cycling and pedestrian infrastructure is provided, more people use it. However, people did not agree with this change immediately in Copenhagen. The argument was that it did not fit with Danish culture: “We are not Italians!” was the slogan. The obvious lack in Copenhagen of the kind of urban culture that can be found in the Mediterranean, where people meet, stand talking, and sit outside restaurants, was evident.

Could the same 1960s mindset in Denmark at the time apply to our current British politicians over 60 years later?

Data about people and their behaviour, and willingness from politicians and local authorities to invest, is one of the key reasons for Copenhagen’s biking success today. Researchers with architectural, socio-economic and urban design backgrounds collected the data for over 40 years and together with local authorities have actively been using evidence-based research to push through for change.

Denmark is now famous for its bicycle culture. However, one of the questions often posed by foreign visitors is what happens

in winter?

The bike is the primary means of transport for many Danes and is associated with freedom and flexibility. Therefore, the weather is not perceived as an obstacle. As such, it should not be perceived as one in the UK either. The advantages of cycling simply outweigh the hassles of cycling in the rain or snow. However, maintenance of infrastructure is crucial and requires a budget.

Inexpensive and yet effective interventions took place 30 years ago in the city of Trondheim, Norway.

The bicycle lift named “Trampe” was installed on one of the steepest hills in the city. Opening in August 1993, this was the first and only bicycle lift in the world. Trampe annually carries 2030,000 cyclists up the hill throughout the year. Up to five people can take the lift simultaneously, and it is free to use.

Presenting positive solutions With more investment in cycle and pedestrian paths, as seen in Copenhagen, perhaps more people would consider exchanging their car for a bicycle, at least some days a week?

People often make use of what is there for them when it is there. As designers, we have the power to present the opportunity of networks of high-quality infrastructure that encourage cycling.

We have a responsibility and can influence the consideration of movements through a site as well as connectivity between a site and its surrounding area. Designers know that for large scale, new developments in suburban and rural areas, allowing the delivery of sustainable and affordable transport infrastructure in the right places, a mix of high-quality homes to meet local need, and creating low carbon lifestyles by integrating green travel options that boosts walking and cycling.

A good example of a good infrastructure project in the UK is The Waterbeach Greenway, in Cambridge, a 6.8-mile cycle route which will be ready within the next two years and is described as, ‘an active travel route to make it easier for walkers, cyclists and horse riders to travel from Waterbeach into Cambridge.’

Such projects make it simpler for people to travel in a pleasant and sustainable way and help make their local journeys easier.

Another project that influenced behavioural change towards walking and cycling is New Road in Brighton. When it was commissioned by Brighton and Hove City Council New Road had become increasingly run-down – dominated by the needs of vehicles rather than people. As a result, it was relatively inaccessible and ignored, with areas drowning in traffic congestion.

Scandinavian design consultancy firm Gehl Architects and landscape architects Landscape Projects conducted a ‘Public Space/Public Life Survey’, using data and analysing the urban structure, movement patterns, and open-air activities to provide advice on improvement.

The design of the street emphasizes pedestrian and cyclist priority and promotes driving at low speeds. Drivers are transitioned to the street across a textured rumbled strip, whilst the surface is

www.planninginlondon.com

carefully detailed to hint at how people should arrange themselves.

Since its opening, traffic levels in the street have dropped by 93 per cent, whilst cycling and pedestrian numbers have risen by 22 per cent and 162 per cent respectively. In addition, there was an increase of 600 per cent in lingering activities, which has resulted in an increased contribution to the city’s economy, and 86 per cent of residents in Brighton would like to see this elsewhere.

Conclusion Sixty years ago, the people of Copenhagen thought that their climate and culture was not Mediterranean enough to facilitate active travel and café culture. Now Scandinavia is renowned for both. And so, if Copenhagen, with an average annual temperature of 8.9C can achieve this, so can the UK. n

Issue 127 October-December 2023

61

LAND VALUE BENCHMARK | ANDREW GOLLAND

Land value benchmark: retrospect and prospect Of all the thorny matters associated with viability assessment, sorting out the ‘land value benchmark’ (LVB) is without question the most challenging.

It is perhaps the main reason why assessment is seen as somewhat of a ‘dark art’, explains Andrew Golland

Dr Andrew Golland is principal of Andrew Golland Associates

62

Planning in London

I look here briefly back at what LVB is, where it came from, why it is needed and what its prospects might be for the future.

Fusty economics text books Those who studied the Economics of Development within the last half century will be well acquainted with the theory of obsolescence – this can still be found in fusty text books as far back as the 1970s. This explains well why land and buildings change use; most significantly where there is economic obsolesce – here it is easy to understand why land and property will remain unchanged without a financial incentive to deliver a higher land value by a change of use.

This theory provides perhaps the clearest way of understanding why a LVB is needed because this sets a ‘hurdle’ over which the new use must ‘jump’.

With green field, the theory is equally valid although it is much more difficult to actually ‘set’ the benchmark.

What is agreed on, whether explicitly through development land tax, or implicitly via Section 106, is that the assessment of betterment requires a threshold, or land value benchmark.

Residual Value versus Land Value (and why there is no such thing as ‘Residual Land Value’) It was the surveying profession that first coined the term ‘Residual Land Value’ (RLV). For the purposes of viability assessment, the term ‘RLV’ is entirely unhelpful. There is either Residual Value or there is Land Value. Residual Value is a bespoke concept and is the difference between gross development value and total construction costs calculated by single or dual agencies trying to work out a paper differential. Land Value is what happens when several agencies bid for land and which may reflect a rational or indeed irrational decision making process. Land Value is an objective measure; it can be traced via public or private records or data. It may, or may not, equate with a LVB depending on whether policy is, or is not, reflected in a bid for land.

Policy (and why it doesn’t work in practice) National policy guidance on LVB finally caught up with local and regional practice and guidance some 20 years too late.

The structure for LVB assessment was initially defined in guidance of the GLA (Greater London Authority) and then worked up through local practice with particular authorities (e.g. LB Islington) producing more crafted and better defined norms and standards.

In the background, we have had a number of reports (EG Harman and RICS) which initially followed a sort of ‘market-led’ approach but then moved more towards definition of LVB in line with policy.

National Planning Policy Guidance focuses LVB quite clearly on ‘Existing Use Value’ (EUV). In doing so, it assumes that Section

106 will be gained from the uplift between the value of land and/or property, and, on the other hand, the Residual Value of the scheme being proposed. The EUV should discount hope value and should strictly reflect the current legal planning use.

Moreover ‘deal prices’ or pure ‘land value’ are to be discounted where the applicant fails to reflect local authority planning policy in the deal done for the land.

So far so good. Where this process starts to get muddy is because national planning policy guidance does take into account Alternative Use Value (AUV). Where this is seen to be valid, then AUV seems to homogenize with EUV. The grounds upon which this is allowed to happen, are that the site would, in terms of planning acceptability, be likely to be given planning consent for an alternative use. This inevitably triggers a debate on what might or might not be acceptable.

The most tricky situation arises where there is a new housing scheme being applied for and there is perhaps already an extant consent for an alternative housing scheme. What happens if the extant consent did not deliver Section 106 (or only a partial contribution)? Under these circumstances the local authority may feel it is within its rights to back track to the initial use which may have been commercial.

These are ongoing daily problems facing the assessment process and to which there are no straightforward solutions under the current guidance.

The data deficit In an ideal world, we would have robust data to help with land value benchmarks. We would have land transactions and, in addition, the policy requirements that were achieved. This is somewhat of a pipe dream; this is data that is not normally provided by applicants in support of their appraisals.

And it is the policy impacts that we cannot easily assess. The Valuation Office fairly recently stopped publishing land value data at a regional level, which gave some handle on where we were locally.

The MHCLG (2019) published data on ‘Land Value Estimates for Policy Appraisal’: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/land-valueestimates-for-policy-appraisal-2019 This gives indicative land values for local authorities. Rather disappointingly however the land values do not reflect the impact of Affordable Housing which is usually the largest discounter of land value. So that doesn’t really help other than to perhaps indicate the value differences between land use values.

Neither has there been any proper research to help local authorities with LVBs taking into account local market dynamics, particularly of land supply.

Help does arrive through developer and land owner consultation in support of local plan viability evidence bases but there is

always a danger here that the information does reflect hope value, which national guidance specifically attempts to exclude.

So, here is a huge problem in deciding LVBs.

Prospect I see several prospects for LVB as a way of sorting out viability issues: • Death by irrelevance: in essence, if the development market worsens LVB becomes irrelevant because costs are higher than GDV (Gross Development Value) and hence residual values are negative. Here the benchmark for the site becomes a spurious issue.

In practice this may happen – and happen increasingly – but only in limited cases where values are modest compared to high costs (think here high density apartment developments in the Midlands and the North). In most case there will be surplus for land; • Muddling through: we continue with the currently very imperfect system and struggle to make robust plans, wade through pages of site specific LVB definitions and face inspectors who all too often have no clue about what viability consultants are talking about; • Find a more systematic way of defining LVB. This (systematic way) may sound unrealistic, but in practice it is not that difficult.

The reality is that LVB to a large extent, finds its own level.

Typically this is somewhere between EUV and residual value (usually for residential). The quantum, or percentage of land owner return, is normally set by norms, sporadic appeal decisions and by sheer force of argument.

There has been nothing systematic about it.

One way of making the process more transparent and systematic would be to link LVBs to local land supply. Local authorities have had a responsibility to provide a five year land supply. The market is conditioned to some extent by this measure (although this is less the case now since the government has moved away from housing targets) and in practice the relationship between

www.planninginlondon.com

land supply and land value does influence the market.

Taking this relationship into account could help in principle in viability negotiations. As follows: In the diagram: • As land supply increases, LVB falls (red line) – a reflection of scarcity; • Residual Value (RV) in principle remains unaffected by the amount of land supply (this applies in a market like the UK where second hand dwelling prices determine new prices in the market); • Some sites will find themselves in a situation where RV is below LVB. The chart assumes this will be most likely to happen where land supply is tight; • Some sites will find themselves in a situation where RV is above LVB. The chart assumes this will be most likely to happen where land supply is high or generous; To set LVBs in this way would require large data sets and examples from across the country – the slope of the (red) line would differ in different areas depending on the historic land supply situation.

But it could be done with sufficient data back up and resources, and could lead to the faster resolution of viability debates. It’s complex, admittedly, but the key advantage of factoring in land supply (and the five year land supply in particular) would be to alert local authorities to the fact that the greater land released, the greater the opportunity for Section 106 delivery.

Very many assessments are done on the basis of multiplying EUV by a factor to get to LVB. This is fine as far as it goes, but there is no way of applying say a x20 fold multiplier of agricultural land to a whole range of authorities in the same way. One might have a 10 year land supply, another say 2. A single multiplier is not appropriate in both cases.

Greater Section 106 delivery is desirable because that leads to more sustainable development. Only by thinking more laterally on LVBs and the role for land supply will we arrive at a more robust assessment process. n

Issue 127 October-December 2023

63

SUSTAINABLE CITIES | CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD

Sustainable cities The topics of 'the future' and sustainability are inextricably linked. At a city level the picture of sustainability is much more complex than it is for assets.

Here we set out a summary of the major discussion points and ask whether there is hope for our future cities.

Visit our Future of Cities Lab here: https://www.cushmanwakefield.com/en/unitedkingdom/insights/futureof-cities

64

Planning in London

The concepts of the future and sustainability are inextricably linked. It’s quite simple: if the future is to look like the present, then current activities need to be sustainable. Of course, they rarely are sustained in the long run and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Perhaps the old way wasn’t serving us particularly well. Or perhaps we found a new or better way to do things - it’s in our nature to seek out innovation and strive for progress. The challenge arises when the departure from status quo is not a choice, but rather an externality forced upon us with negative consequences.

Many such departures arise due to resource depletion. For instance, if you’ve mined 90% of the gold in a gold mine, then future mining will not be indefinitely sustainable. Against the desire of the mine owner to extract profit forever, that is clearly not possible. In other situations, the outcome is more influenceable and less clear cut. These typically involve a trade-off. For instance, in the face of rising costs, the current operations of the NHS might no longer be sustainable. There are of course solutions, for instance raising taxes or diverting funding from other departments, but that will mean taking pain elsewhere.

Perhaps the trade-off will mean that another activity, such as your weekly meal out, or the current cost of your season ticket is no longer sustainable.

The challenge of our times lies in one of these very difficult trade-offs. We either reduce carbon emissions, or we incur what might be devastating impacts of global warming. This could be formulated as a Hobson’s choice (i.e. one which in truth only has one answer) - but it isn’t. Whereas the impacts of climate change are manifest, the sacrifices associated with carbon reduction are no walk in the park either. For investors, they include a significant premature write-down in asset values due to functional and regulatory obsolescence, and for everyone else, they mean a reduction in consumption and a curtailing of lifestyles. The reality is that every day we implicitly determine this trade off in our behaviors and commercial activities. The choice is real and we are making it. And on balance, we are choosing climate change.

The actions (or inactions) of governments around the world and all of us as consumers put us on a course that is going to be very difficult in the longer term. Who knows, maybe we will innovate our way out of this trade off. However, the likelihood is that we will probably now bear both the penalties of obsolescence, the cost of new infrastructure and also the impacts of climate change. This is the terrible middle ground that results from a half-hearted trade off; and it is going to be hugely influential on the future of our cities. If that was all there was, then it would be more than enough to deal with. However, the truth is much scarier. There is a raft of sustainability challenges hitting our cities across multiple domains, of which the environment is just one.

The city is the most complex human ecosystem. Against epithets such ‘eternal’ and timeless, cities are often finely balanced networks that can be subject to significant change. They require many resources to sustain them, many of which are neither infinite nor renewable. Whilst people do tend to have a habit of staying where they were born, this trend is decreasing, and cities are reliant on the continuation of sometimes capricious demand. People and businesses need to enduringly want to participate in the outputs and activities of their city; whereas increasingly urbanites are mobile and have choices to move if their city no longer services their needs.

Environmental sustainability is front page news, but in the city context, economic sustainability is perhaps equally important. Indeed, this broader definition is recognised in UN Sustainability Goal 11, which describes sustainable cities as ones which are dedicated to green sustainability, social sustainability and economic sustainability. But it is also other things: sustainability of energy and food supplies, reliance on external supply chains, sustainability of biodiversity, sustainability of land use and infrastructure, and the impact of inequalities on social sustainability.

Over time urban theorists and practitioners have evolved their thinking on how to promote sustainability and wellbeing in the city context. Starting in the early 1900s with an agenda to clean up pollution and slums, we saw the codification of land use and the introduction of a planned approach to development. The next wave was about personal space; including Ebenezer Howard’s Garden City concept, the Australian ‘quarter-acre plot’ and the push into suburbs like ‘Metroland’. This addressed contemporary issues, but created new ones which set the agenda for modern urbanist approaches. As big cities grew and sprawled further outwards, so the time to move around them, and the cohesion of local communities suffered.

Particularly true of the modern North American cities that were free from the confining shackles of their medieval European cousins, personal space meant urban sprawl – perhaps the single biggest problem faced in modern urbanist thinking.

Out of this new challenge came the New Urbanist movement, and cities that promoted density, walkability and active frontages. Alongside New Urbanism we have seen the emergence of Smart Growth principles in the 1970s, and more recently, Eco Cities, Smart Cities and now 15-minute cities. The modern focus is very clearly anchored in sustainability, social inclusion and the efficient allocation of resources. Collectively, this feels very obvious thinking today and is built into most contemporary policy; however, the legacy of urban sprawl is very hard to unpick. The majority of cities is about what has already been built under a different regime, rather than the annual delta of new best practice, and the degree of effectiveness of new interventions also often gets lost under the weight

of new economic and resource pressures.

Perhaps as a consequence, the UN Environment Programme assesses that most cities are on a path of environmental degradation, have inadequate infrastructure (and over reliance on cars), and suffer from a lack of basic services. Cities suffer from unsustainably low levels of housing delivery (particularly at the bottom end); commute times are getting higher, homes are getting smaller, we have less and less external amenity per capita, and crime and mental health challenges are growing disproportionately in our cities. Otherwise put, cities are getting worse.

They are getting worse because the standards of living and other quality factors determined in a previous age are no longer sustainable in the modern environment. This, along with climate change, is perhaps one of the biggest issues of our times; one that touches all of you, and one which has a bearing on how we use and invest in real estate. Suburbanisation hasn’t worked; but it looks like densification isn’t doing too well either. Is it time for a new approach?

This topic is far too big to crunch into one blog. However, I’ll try to set out below a 101 of the headlines that you need to be thinking about in this hugely important area: Land use - Only 9% of land in the UK is urban (3% globally); 28% is used for grazing animals and a significant percentage of the rest has no role in our commerce or supply chain. So, we aren’t even close to running out of land. However, we are running out of land where it counts. There are vast tracts of land in the world with very low population density (either they are inhospitable, or they are distant from population nodes), and then there are super dense population centres that have grown into economic hubs. Over the past 200 years this has become more and more polarised due to industrialisation and urbanisation. The pressure is now being felt in these dense centres, whereas other areas of the world are wasted. We need to reopen thinking about creating new towns rather than adding to those already under significant strain.

Infrastructure – In theory, density is a good thing; it reduces travelling and makes resource consumption more efficient.

However, density also puts pressure on amenity ratios. Density is typically achieved through height, and so as we get denser, the ratio of people to ground floor space and amenity (like parks) increases, and everyone gets a bit less. This includes roads, which get more congested (and therefore polluted) and travel time increases. Density also increases the marginal cost of delivery (every time you dig a new tube line, you need to dig a bit deeper, and every time you build a taller skyscraper, the incremental costs get higher). The value of increased density is therefore asymptotic, and many cities around the world have got to a tipping point where further density is not sustainable. We need to acknowledge the limit of densification, and shift growth focus to cities that still have capacity to densify.

www.planninginlondon.com

Industrial Diversification – Some cities are poorly diversified from an industrial perspective, which creates significant risks to economic sustainability. The classic example is that of a mining town (like Bodie, California, or Hashima Island, Japan). When the mine dries up, the mining company leaves, the city loses its purpose and spirals into economic decline. The other example would be a ‘company town’ where one business dominates the local economy. If the company leaves or goes bust, the town fails.

There are also risks in the case of strong agglomerations. For instance, if a city is built on the fossil fuels sector, and that sector is regulated out of existence, the city will likely fail. Or if a city is exposed to a specific function (like call centres) that are disrupted, then that city will face challenges. A sustainable city is one that has a well-diversified and future focussed industrial strategy.

Self-sufficiency – If any ecosystem is reliant on externalities, then it is less sustainable than one which is not. To take an extreme example, we on earth are 100% reliant on the sun. If the sun blows up, we die, and there is nothing we can do about it. At a city level, some cities are reliant on external financial subsidy, say from central government. This is often subject to political whim, and therefore presents a risk to economic sustainability. At a macro level, the UK is 80% reliant on external supply chains for food and many commodities. Contrast this with say Shanghai, where 63% of food consumed is created in the city limits. Of course the topic of the day is energy self-sufficiency, and this puts ever more pressure on building economically sustainable renewable supplies. A sustainable city is one that has a high selfsufficiency.

Commercial sustainability – Every market is subject to supply and demand variations, but since they tend to swing to equilibrium, this does not create sustainability challenges. However, where there is either a sharp structural correction, or a one-way trajectory for demand, then the sustainability of commerce is threatened. Over the past 20 years for instance, we have seen a fairly linear progression of e-commerce adoption, which has meant that former volumes of retail space are no longer sustainable. Similarly, the removal of weekday footfall from city centres associated with new work models has left businesses that rely on regular daily footfall, or train operators that rely on 5 days’ worth of peak travel unviable. The work model shift has the potential to be the biggest disruptor of the economic sustainability of our cities in the next decade.

Positive commercial shocks – Sometimes good news can also be bad news. The arrival of a large corporate occupier in a city

>>>

Issue 127 October-December 2023

65

SUSTAINABLE CITIES | CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD

>>> should be good news. If, however, the occupier is dominant on a segment of the economy and attracts new roles that are outside the structure of the existing employment market, then the transition period can be painful for local residents. A classic example is the arrival of a large tech occupier, paying big wages which attract in-movers. Whereas the hope is for trickle down benefits for all, often the housing market can’t adjust quickly enough, with the effect that locals are priced out and gentrification and two-tier markets emerge. The former economic balance is no longer sustainable and existing residents (particularly renters) get pushed out. A sustainable city is one that can absorb positive economic shocks effectively; which means it needs to have quick and responsive decision making and the ability to accelerate land supply.

Inequality – In the long run, inequalities are theoretically unsustainable. For a few people to hold the majority of the resources, common goods and advantages in cities is both unfair and liable to change pressures. In general urban economics promote inequality, in that land is allocated with preference to the rich and the profitable. Land ownership has been proven to widen the wealth gap, and result in other socio-economic challenges. For instance poorer people are priced out of central and desirable areas, which reduces their opportunities and increases their inconvenience. Poorer people tend to live in areas of greater pollution, worse health outcomes, less access to green space and weaker infrastructure. Sustainable cities are ones which create inclusive growth, and balance effectively and fairly the needs of multiple stakeholders.

Environmental –For most cities around the world, flooding is the biggest environmental risk. Cities are disproportionately exposed to these risks because historically many were founded in coastal areas or near major water courses. For some cities around the world, 3 degrees of global warming (1.5m sea level rise) would put them underwater. Some of our biggest global cities (New York, Miami, Tokyo, Osaka, Ho Chi Minh, Kolkata, Amsterdam) would be very seriously affected by sea level rise;

whereas many smaller towns and cities will also suffer greatly from increased storm surge in the road to 2040. For some cities, this may mean extinction. In preparedness for this, many cities need to start taking action now to safeguard their future (e.g.

Jakarta is spending $40bn on a sea wall). Sustainable cities have a clear plan for how they will manage climate change.

Population Change – Set against the explosion of growth in South Asia and Africa, many cities around the world are now losing population. Many countries in Europe (Greece, Italy, Portugal, Balkans) are already population negative (as with China and South Korea), and most of Europe might well be population negative by 2040. Population growth is one of the biggest determinants of GDP growth, inward investment and economic sustainability. Without it, multiple challenges emerge: including economic sustainability, financial stability, social cohesion, and personal wealth reduction – we see some of these in Japan following a period of population decline.

Offsetting population decline in the West is high levels of migration, which have the potential to increase dramatically if climate effects exacerbate. Sustainable cities of the future will need to develop strategies to manage both population increase and decline.

Urban Greening – Modern cities have been built on asphalt and concrete. We see a continued reduction in biodiversity in cities and city fringes as habitats are threatened. A secondary consequence of urbanisation is the ‘urban heat island effect’, with urban materials attracting and absorbing larger amounts of thermal energy than extra-urban locations. This in turn creates thermal pollution in urban water-courses, damaging ecology and increasing air pollution. Asphalt cities also increase the risk of flash-flooding, whereas loss of ecology and green space (12% of Brits don’t have access to private external space) has been shown to damage mental health. For all of these reasons, a sustainable city is a green city.

In combination these factors are all very real ones. As well as the obvious social impacts, they each have a bearing on the future value of assets within these cities. In some cases the glide path and risk profile is much steeper than others.

However, these principles and challenges are ubiquitous, and will sit at the core of investor decision making over the next decade.

Is all hope lost for cities? The outlook certainly appears challenging, but thankfully there are a number of innovations (urbanism, technology, policy, data) that offer positive news.

The next edition of Futures /Cut will be dedicated to those. In the meantime, why not check out our vision for the Future of Cities, on our interactive Future of Cities website, by clicking the image below. n If you’d prefer to listen to an audio version, click here for the podcast: https://open.spotify.com/episode/1Rr4kFgu50mPyBhSgOJPps

66

Planning in London

BOOKS: MODERN BUILDINGS IN LONDON | IAN NAIRN

Nairn’s London Modern Buildings in London Ian Nairn Introduced by Travis Elborough Price: £16.99, Publication date: 5 September 2023 176 pages, Notting Hill Editions

Without any doubt, London is one of the best cities in the world for modern architecture. But it is also one of the biggest cities in the world, and it does not make a display of its best things.' lan Nairn, from the Foreword.

First published in 1964, Modern Buildings in London is a celebration of the city's post-war architecture that was immediately recognisable as 'modern' at the time. Written 'by a layman for laymen', Nairn's take on 250 buildings includes classic buildings such as the Barbican, the former BBC Television Centre and the Penguin Pool at Regent's Park Zoo as well as schools, old timber yards, ambulance stations, car parks and even care homes.

The succinct descriptions bring buildings to life and will you make you look anew at London and its surrounding areas: - Hilton Hotel, Park Lane - 'this white buffalo has turned out a bit better than feared'.

- Royal Festival Hall, South Bank - 'An extraordinary building.

It nonplussed evervone when it was first built' - Chelsea Barracks -'an outstanding exposition of the fact that very big buildings can keep their scale without becoming inhuman.'

- Fairlawn Primary School, Forest Hill - 'Some buildings get into this book through architectural elegance, more - not enough - through being humane and friendly places to be in.

A very few are both, and this is one of them ... so easy, yet so rare.'

- London Transport Bus Garage, Stockwell - 'Probably the noblest modern building in London.'

- Gatwick Airport - 'It is not only ingenious; it can be seen to be ingenious, and it gives a cerebral thrill rather like seeing a perfectly played hand of cards.'

Forty years since his death in 1983, lan Nairn's timeless books on modern urban cities are still hailed as some of the most significant writing about contemporary Britain, while also being praised as alternative 'guidebooks' for curious travellers.

'To call lan Nairn a great architectural writer is too restrictive; he was a great writer who happened to write about buildings and places.' - Irish Times 'Once you discover [Nairn] you want to read everything he's written.' - Daily Telegraph.

The FT comments: A visitor looking for new buildings in the City and the West End might well be justified in turning away with a shudder. Yet delightful things may be waiting for him in Lewisham or St. Albans.' – Ian Nairn, from the 'Foreword' to Modern Buildings in London.

As one of the few architectural critics to eschew purely aesthetic modes of analysis, Ian Nairn's timeless books on modern urban cities have been hailed as some of the most significant writing about contemporary Britain, while also being praised as alternative 'guidebooks' for curious travellers.

www.planninginlondon.com

(The author) celebrates the character of buildings that were immediately recognisable as 'modern' in 1964, many of which were not the part of the well-known landscape of London but instead were gems that Nairn stumbled across. … Nairn's take on modern design includes classic buildings such as the Barbican, the former BBC Television Centre and the Penguin Pool at Regent's Park Zoo as well as schools, old timber yards, ambulance stations, car parks and even care homes. n

Issue 127 October-December 2023

67

BOOKS: LONDON OF THE FUTURE | THE LONDON SOCIETY

London of the Future London of the Future

by Leanne Tritton, Peter Murray, et al 3 Oct 2023 Merrell Hardcover £40.00

A century ago, LONDON OF THE FUTURE was a visionary work containing an eclectic and ambitious series of essays that predicted city-centre airports and Channel tunnels, as well as addressing concerns such as pollution, housing and access to public space.

This brand-new version of the book, published by Merrell, features contributions from experts in various fields, among them architects, engineers, urbanists, journalists and campaigners, sets out how London could and should improve by 2123.

This is the most important book on London to be published this year - support it to be a part of the debate about the future of our city.

There are fascinating insights from Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon, who is a current member in the House of Lords and a patron of the hate crime charity Stop Hate UK. She writes compellingly in her chapter Daring to Dream. The campaigner who has promoted reforms of the police service, addresses one of the city’s biggest challenges: the urgent need to strengthen the relationship between its people and its police.

Some of the issues covered by the original book remain relevant today, but there are many new considerations that the 20th-century authors could not have foreseen. Will London become a Venice-like heritage park for tourists, or be an indepen-

68

Planning in London

dent state? Could local food production feed the capital?

How will we need to adapt to climate change? Will we become a techno-utopia, with Londoners’ lives in perfect harmony with artificial intelligence? How do we achieve a London that is fair and equitable for everyone?

Over the course of eighteen essays, LONDON OF THE FUTURE presents a fresh series of ideas for the 21st century and beyond. It will stimulate debate among architects, developers and planners, and also provide food for thought more generally, in a world where change will be required of everyone.

As Chair of The London Society, Leanne Tritton, says in her foreword to the book: “We anticipate it will provide much-needed provocation about the future of our wonderful city.”

The London Society is a forum for debate on the future of

London.

Established in 1912, it organises events, arranges visits to a variety of buildings and institutions, and sponsors the All-Party Parliamentary Group for London’s Planning and Built Environment. n

https://bathpublishing.com

www.planninginlondon.com

Issue 127 October-December 2023

69

70

Planning in London

DIRECTORY

Planning and Environment Reference Guide Please notify any changes immediately by e-mail to planninginlondon@mac.com with the subject ‘planning in london directory’.

LONDON BOROUGHS DIRECTORY

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Barking Town Hall Barking IG11 7LU

Mr Paul Moore Acting Chief Executive paul.moore@bexley.gov.uk 0203 045 4901 David Bryce-Smith Director Public Protection, Housing and Public Realm david.bryce-smith@bexley.gov.uk 0203 045 5779

020 8215 3000 https://www.lbbd.gov.uk/residents/planning -and-building-control/ Chris Naylor Chief Executive London Borough of Barking and Dagenham chris.naylor@lbbd.gov.uk 020 8227 2137 Simon Green Predsident of Barking and Dagenham Chamber of Commerce info@bdchamber.co.uk 020 8591 6966 Jeremy Grint Divisional Director of Regeneration and Economic Development jeremy.grint@lbbd.gov.uk 020 8227 2443

London Borough of Barnet Planning and Building Control 2 Bristol Avenue Colindale London NW9 4EW 020 8359 3000 Fabien Gaudin Head of the Planning Service 020 8359 2000 There are 3 area teams Lesley Feldman is head of the Finchley and Golders Green area team lesley.feldman@barnet.gov.uk

Seb Salom Head of Strategic Planning and Transportation seb.salom@bexley.gov.uk 0203 045 5779 Kevin Murphy Head of Housing and Regeneration kevin.murphy@bexley.gov.uk 0203 045 5837 Robert Lancaster Head of Developmental Control robert.lancaster@bexley.gov.uk 0203 045 5837

London Borough of Brent Brent Civic Centre Engineers Way Wembley HA9 0FJ 020 8937 1200 www.brent.gov.uk Carolyn Downs Chief Executive chief.executive@brent.gov.uk 020 8937 1007 Amar Dave Strategic Director Regeneration and Environment amar.dave@brent.gov.uk 020 8937 1516 Alice Lester Head of Planning, Transport and Licensing alice.lester@brent.gov.uk 020 8937 6441

Gwyn Richards Chief Planning Officer and Development Director gwynrichards@cityoflondon.gov.uk 020 7332 1700 London Borough of Croydon Development and Environment Bernard Weatherill House

London Borough of Bromley Civic Centre Stockwell Close Bromley BR1 3UH 020 8464 3333 Ade Adetosoye OBE Chief Executive ade.adetosoye@bromley.gov.uk 020 8313 4060

8 Mint Walk, Croydon CR0 1EA 020 8726 6000 www.croydon.gov.uk/ planningandregeneration

Jim Kehoe Chief Planner jim.kehoe@bromley.gov.uk 020 8313 4441

Chief Executive Ms Jo Negrini jo.negrini@croydon.gov.uk

Lisa Thornley Development Control Support Officer

Director of Planning and Strategic Transport Ms Heather Cheeseborough heather.cheeseborough@croydon.gov.uk Director of Development Colm Lacey colm.lacey@croydon.gov.uk 020 8604 7367

lisa.thornley@bromley.gov.uk London Borough of Camden Town Hall Extension Argyle Street WC1H 8EQ 020 7974 4444 www.camden.gov.uk

Head of Building Control Ric Patterson richard.patterson@croydon.gov.uk

Jenny Rowlands Chief Executive jenny.rowlands@camden.gov.uk 020 7974 5621 Frances Wheat Acting Assistant Director for Regeneration and Planning frances.wheat@camden.gov.uk 020 7974 5630

London Borough of Ealing Perceval House 14-16 Uxbridge Road Ealing London W5 2HL 020 8825 6600 www.ealing.gov.uk/planning Chief Executive Paul Najsarek najsarekp@ealing.gov.uk 020 8825 5000

Aktar Choudhury Operational Director of Regeneration aktar.choudhury@brent.gov.uk 020 8937 1764

City of London Department for the Built Environment PO Box 270 Guildhall London EC2P 2EJ 020 7332 1710 www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/planning

London Borough of Bexley Civic Offices Broadway Bexleyheath DA6 7LB

Rob Krzysznowski Spatial Planning Manager rob.krzysznowski@brent.gov.uk 020 8937 2704

Town Clerk and Chief Executive John Barradell OBE john.barradell@cityoflondon.gov.uk 020 7332 1400

Executive Director of Environment Keith Townsend townsendk@ealing.gov.uk 020 8825 5000

020 8303 7777

David Glover Development Management Manager david.glover@brent.gov.uk 020 8937 5344

Director of the Built Environment Ms Carolyn Dwyer carolyn.dwyer@cityoflondon.gov.uk 020 7332 1600

Director of Safer Communities and Housing Mark Whitmore whitmorem@ealing.gov.uk 020 8825 5000

www.bexley.gov.uk/planning

www.planninginlondon.com

Director of Regeneration and Planning David Moore moored@ealing.gov.uk

Issue 124 January-March 2023

71

>>>

Chief Executive Tim Shields tim.shields@hackney.gov.uk 020 8356 3201

London Borough of Enfield PO Box Civic Centre Silver Street Enfield EN1 3XE 020 8379 4419 www.enfield.gov.uk/planning Chief Executive Ian Davis chief.executive@enfield.gov.uk 020 8379 3901

Assistant Director of Planning and Regulatory Services John Allen john.allen@hackney.gov.uk 020 8356 8134

Head of Development Management Andy Higham andy.higham@enfield.gov.uk 020 8379 3848 Planning Decisions Manager Sharon Davidson sharon.davidson@enfield.gov.uk 020 8379 3841 Transportation Planning David B Taylor david.b.taylor@enfield.gov.uk 020 8379 3576

020 8863 5611 www.harrow.gov.uk/planning

Director of Regeneration John Lumley john.lumley@hackney.gov.uk 020 8356 2138

Chief Executive Tom Whiting tom.whiting@harrow.gov.uk 020 8420 9495 Divisional Director of Planning Paul Nichols paul.nichols@harrow.gov.uk 020 8736 6149

The London Borough of Havering Town Hall Main Road Romford RM1 3BD

Head of Planning Regeneration John Finlayson john.finlayson@lbhf.gov.uk 020 8753 6740

01708 433100 www.havering.gov.uk

Royal Borough of Greenwich The Woolwich Centre 35 Wellington Street London SE18 6HQ

Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Skills Pippa Hack pippa.hack@greenwich.gov.uk 020 8921 5519 Assistant Director of Planning Victoria Geoghegan victoria.geoghegan@greewich.gov.uk 020 8921 5363 Assistant Director of Transportation Graham Nash graham.nash@greenwich.gov.uk London Borough of Hackney

Environment and Planning Hackney Service Centre 1 Hillman Street E8 1DY 020 8356 8062

72

Planning in London

Chief Executive Andrew Blake-Herbert andrew.blakeherbert@havering.gov.uk 01708 432201

Planning and Building Control Simon Thelwell simon.thelwell@havering.gov.uk 01708 432685

London Borough Of Haringey Level 6 River Park House 225 High Road Wood Green London N22 8HQ

Head of Development Management Dean Hermitage dean.hermitage@haringey.gov.uk

Head of Regeneration & Spatial Planning Ian Rae ian.rae@hounslow.gov.uk 020 8583 2561

London Borough of Islington 222 Upper Street London N1 1XR 020 7527 6743 www.islington.gov.uk/planning Chief Executive Ms Lesley Seary lesley.seary@islington.gov.uk 020 7527 3136

Team Leader for Planning & Projects Eshwyn Prabhu eshwin.prabhu@islington.gov.uk 020 7527 2450

Director for Housing, Regeneration & Planning Dan Hawthorn dan.hawthorn@haringey.gov.uk

Head of Planning Policy, Transport & Infrastructure Rob Krzyszowski rob.krzyszowski@haringey.gov.uk

Head of Development Management Marilyn Smith marilyn.smith@hounslow.gov.uk 020 8583 4994

Service Director of Planning & Development Karen Sullivan karen.sullivan@islington.gov.uk 020 7527 2949

020 8489 1400 www.haringey.gov.uk

Assistant Director for Planning, Building Standards and Sustainability Emma Williamson emma.williamson@haringey.gov.uk

020 8583 5555 www.hounslow.gov.uk/planning

Planning Control Manager Helen Oakerbee helen.oakerbee@havering.gov.uk 01708 432800

Development & Transport Planning Martyn Thomas martyn.thomas@havering.gov.uk 01708 432845

020 8921 6426 www.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/planning

London Borough Of Hounslow Civic Centre Lampton Road Hounslow TW3 4DN

Strategic Director of Housing , Planning & Communities Peter Matthew peter.matthew@hounslow.gov.uk

Chief Executive Ms Kim Dero kim.dero@lbhf.gov.uk 020 8753 3000

Head of Policy & Spatial Planning Pat Cox pat.cox@lbhf.gov.uk 020 8753 5773

Head of Major Initiatives, Strategic Planning & Transportation Jales Tippell jales.tippell@hillingdon.gov.uk 01895 250230

Chief Executive Niall Bolger niall.bolger@hounslow.gov.uk 020 8770 5203

London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham Hammersmith Town Hall Extension King Street London W6 9JU 020 8748 3020 www.lbhf.gov.uk

Head of Development Management Ellen Whitchurch ellen.whitchurch@lbhf.gov.uk 020 8753 3484

Acting Chief Executive Ms Debbie Warren debbie.warren@royalgreenwich.gov.uk 020 8921 5000

London Borough of Harrow PO Box 37 Civic Centre Station Road Harrow HA1 2UY

Head of Spatial Planning Randall Macdonald 020 8356 8051

Head of Planning Policy Joanne Woodward joanne.woodward@enfield.gov.uk 020 8379 3881 Assistant Director Planning, Highways & Transportation Bob Griffiths bob.griffiths@enfield.gov.uk 020 8379 3676

Head of Planning & Enforcement James Rodger james.rodger@hillingdon.gov.uk 01895 250230

London Borough of Hillingdon Civic Centre High Street Uxbridge UB8 1UW 01895 250111 www.hillingdon.gov.uk/planning Chief Executive & Corporate Director of Administration Ms Fran Beasley fbeasley@hillingdon.gov.uk 01895 250111 Deputy Director of Residents Services Nigel Dicker ndicker@hillingdon.gov.uk 01895 250566

Deputy Head of Development Management & Building Control Andrew Marx andrew.marx@islington.gov.uk 020 7527 2045 Head of Spatial Planning Sakiba Gurda sakiba.gurda@islington.gov.uk 020 7527 2731

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REFERENCE GUIDE

Chief Executive Ms Janet Senior janet.senior@lewisham.gov.uk 020 8314 8013 Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea The Town Hall Hornton Street London W8 7NX

Development Manager Geoff Whittington geoff.whittington@lewisham.gov.uk

020 7361 3000 planning@rbck.gov.uk

020 8891 1411 www.richmond.gov.uk/planning

Chief Executive Barry Quirk barry.quirk@rbck.gov.uk 020 7361 2991 Executive Director of Planning & Borough Development Graham Stallwood graham.stallwood@rbck.gov.uk 020 7361 2612

Chief Executive Paul Martin paul.martin@richmondandwandsworth.gov.uk 020 8871 6001 London Borough of Merton Merton Civic Centre London Road Morden Surrey SM4 5DX 020 8545 3837 www.merton.gov.uk/planning Chief Executive Ged Curran chief.executive@merton.gov.uk 020 8545 3332

Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames Guildhall 2 High Street Kingston Upon Thames KT1 1EU 020 8547 5002 www.kingston.gov.uk/planning

Assistant Director Traffic & Engineering Nick O’Donnell nick.o’donnell@richmondandwandsworth.gov. uk Deputy Director Highway Operations & Street Scene Kevin Power kevin.power@richmondandwandsworth.gov.uk

The London Borough of Tower Hamlets Mulberry Place 5 Clove Crecsent London E14 2BE 020 8364 5009 Chief Executive Will Tuckley will.tuckley@towerhamlets.gov.uk Divisional Director Planning & Building Control owen.whalley@towerhamlets.gov.uk 020 7364 5314 Strategic Planning Manager Adele Maher adele.maher@towerhamlets.gov.uk 020 7364 5375

Director of Community and Housing Hannah Doody hannah.doody@merton.gov.uk 020 8545 3680 The London Borough of Southwark 160 Tooley Street London SE1 2QH 020 7525 3559 London Borough of Newham Newham Dockside 1000 Dockside Road London E16 2QU 020 8430 2000 www.newham.gov.uk/planning Chief Executive Kim Bromley-Derry kim.bromley-derry@newham.gov.uk

London Borough of Lambeth Phoenix House 10 Wandsworth Road London SW8 2LL

Director of Housing and Regeneration Brian Reilly brian.reilly@richmondandwandsworth.gov.uk

Director of Environment and Regeneration Chris Lee chris.lee@merton.gov.uk 020 8545 3051

Interim Chief Executive Roy Thompson roy.thompson@kingston.gov.uk 020 8547 5343 Head of Planning Lisa Fairmaner lisa.fairmaner@kingston.gov.uk 020 8470 4706

London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames Civic Centre 44 York Street Twickenham TW1 3BZ

Executive Head of Economic Development, Planning & Sustainability Eleanor Purser eleanor.purser@sutton.gov.uk

The London Borough Of Waltham Forest Town Hall London E17 4JF 020 8496 3000 www.walthamforest.gov.uk

Chief Executive Eleanor Kelly eleanor.kelly@southwark.gov.uk 020 7525 7171 Strategic Director of Environment & Social Regeneration Deborah Collins deborah.collins@southwark.gov.uk 020 7525 7171

Director of Commissioning (Communities, Environment & Housing) Simon Litchford QPM simon.litchford@newham.gov.uk

Chief Executive Martin Esom martin.esom@walthamforest.gov.uk 020 8496 3000 Strategic Director, Corporate Development Rhona Cadenhead rhona.cadenhead@walthamforest.gov.uk 020 8496 8096 Director Regeneration & Growth Lucy Shomali lucy.shomali@walthamforest.gov.uk

Chief Executive Andrew Travers atravers@lambeth.gov.uk 020 7926 9677 Divisional Director for Planning, Regeneration & Enterprise Alison Young ayoung5@lambeth.gov.uk 020 7926 9225 Divisional Director Housing Strategy & Partnership Rachel Sharpe rsharpe@lambeth.gov.uk

London Borough of Lewisham Town Hall Catford London SE6 4RU 020 8314 6000 www.lewisham.gov.uk/planning

www.planninginlondon.com

London Borough of Redbridge 128-142 High Road Ilford London IG1 1DD

The London Borough of Sutton 24 Denmark Road Carshalton SurreySM5 2JG

020 8554 5000 www.redbridge.gov.uk/planning

020 8770 5000 www.sutton.gov.uk/planning

Chief Executive & Head of Paid Service Andy Donald andy.donald@redbridge.gov.uk

Chief Executive Helen Bailey helen.bailey@sutton.gov.uk

Interim Head of Planning & Building Control Ciara Whelehan ciara.whelehan@redbridge.gov.uk

Assistant Director, Resources Directorate (Asset Planning, Management & Capital Delivery) Ade Adebayo ade.adebayo@sutton.gov.uk 020 8770 6349

Head of Inward Investment & Enterprise Mark Lucas mark.lucas@redbridge.gov.uk 020 8708 2143

The London Borough of Wandsworth Town Hall Wandsworth High Street London SW18 2PU 020 8871 6000 www.wandsworth.gov.uk

Strategic Director of Environment, Housing & Regeneration Mary Morrisey mary.morrissey@sutton.gov.uk 020 8770 6101

Chief Executive Paul Martin paul.martin@wandsworth.gov.uk 020 8871 6001 Head of Development Permissions Nick Calder ncalder@wandsworth.gov.uk 020 8871 8417 Environment and Community Services Directorate

Issue 127 October-December 2023

>>>

73

Mark Hunter mhunter@wandsworth.gov.uk 020 8871 8418 Head of Forward Planning and Transportation John Stone jstone@wandsworth.gov.uk 020 8871 6628

Chief Executive Stuart Love slove@westminster.gov.uk 020 7641 3091 City Of Westminster Westminster City Hall 64 Victoria Street London SW1E 6QP 020 7641 6500 www.westminster.gov.uk

OTHER ORGANISATIONS Greater London Authority City Hall Kamal Chunchie Way London E16 1ZE 020 7983 4000 www.london.gov.uk Sadiq Khan Mayor of London mayor@london.gov.uk 020 7983 4000

Assistant Director, Planning (GLA) and City Planning (TfL) Lucinda Turner Head of Development Management John Finlayson Head of the London Plan and Growth Strategies Lisa Fairmaner lisa.fairmaner@london.gov.uk Planning Change Manager Peter Kemp

Greater London Authority Executive Director, Good Growth Philip Graham

Please notify any changes immediately by e-mail to planninginlondon@mac.com with the subject ‘planning in london directory’.

Director of Planning 020 7641 2519 Head of City Policy and Strategy Barry Smith bsmith@westminster.gov.uk 020 7641 3052

WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPONSOR THIS DIRECTORY? Previous sponsors were Colliers and Knight Frank.

If maybe then please email editor@planninginlondon.com

Urban Design London Palestra 197 Blackfriars Road London SE1 8AA 020 7593 9000 www.urbandesignlondon.com

Department of Levelling up, Communities and Local Government 020 7944 4400

Planning Officers Society The Croft, 81 Walton Road, Aylesbury HP21 7SN tel: 01296 422161

enquiries.br@levellingup.gov.uk planning.policies@levellingup.gov.uk Joanna Averley, director, chief planner chiefplanner@levellingup.gov.uk

Design For London City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA info@designforlondon.gov.uk

Sarah Allan, head of design designquality@levellingup.gov.uk Simon Gallagher, director, planning

Magazine of the Year (non-weekly) WINNER 2007 & finalist 2006 – 2012 & 2016 & 2018 International Building Press

Keep taking your PiL Please complete and mail the form below with cheque for £99.00 or click SUBSCRIBE at www.planninginlondon.com and pay with PayPal or credit card

Avalon Planning, L B Barnet, Gilmartinley, Harvard College Library, London Wharf PLC, L B Islington, L B Greenwich, Sport England, Entec UK, Berkeley Group, Workspace Group, LB Bexley, RBK&C, RTPI, LB Bromley, PRP Architects, Durrants, British Land Company, L B Islington, CBE, GL Hearn, Holistic Group, White Young Green, Dentons, i-Document Solutions, Trowers & Hamlins, British Land, Montagu Evans, Hayes Davidson, Precise Media, NLP, L B Merton, Cluttons Planning, Speechly Bircham, TP Bennett, The London Society, Ebsco, Brockton Capital, Turley Associates, Munkenbeck & Partners, Terence O'Rourke, Assael Architecture, Metropolitan Workshop, PRP, Urban Research, AMEC, GLA, LCR Stations and Property, Terence O'Rourke, Rolfe Judd Planning, Southbank University, Lurot Brand, Slaughter and May, Alliance Planning, Cluttons, DPP, Savills, Henley Business School, Grosvenor, Sainsbury's, Hamptons International, Barratt Homes, National Grid, Network Rail, Foster + Partners, Gorkana Group, London & Continental Railways, London Communications Agency, Cardiff University, Womble Bond Dickinson, L B Ealing, MHCLG, Transport for London, LSE Library, Deloitte Real Estate, London Councils, Circle 33 Housing Trust, P&O Estates Ltd, Greenwich University, Steer Davies Gleave, City of Westminster, British Architectural Library, CBRE, Delancy, PDP London, Bellway Homes, Jestico & Whiles, London & Quadrant, Ecology Consultancy Ltd, Tesco Plc, Ramboll, Dominion Properties, WSP Indigo, Slaughter and May, LSE library, Assael Architecture, British Land Company ...

... Just some of the firms and organisations who have taken their Planning in London subscription. ONE YEAR FOR JUST £99 To subscribe: click on www.planninginlondon.com or please return this form. A subscription is a licence for 5 copies emailed in PDF format.

Please supply up to 5 email addresses to planninginlondon@mac.com

74

Planning in London

I would like to subscribe from:

Go to planninginlondon.com > Subscribe and pay online with

last issue 126 July 2023 this issue 127 October 2023 next issue 128 January 2024 I enclose a cheque for £99.00 (no VAT, payable to Planning in London) I am interested in advertising in the Advice directory (£300 for one year) Please debit my card £106 (£99+£6.00 for credit card administration, no VAT payable) Card type:

VISA

MASTERCARD

Card number: Expiry date:

security no:

Signature:

Tel:

Name on card:

Up to 5 Email addresses:

Firm: Card billing address:

Delivery address if different:

Post cheque to: Planning in London, Studio Petersham, Gorshott, 181 Petersham Road TW10 7AW for the attention of Melanie Hern

SHAPING THE WORLD | CARBON SAVINGS FROM WORKING FROM HOME

IWG and ARUP carbon report The message is clear.

Five-day commutes to city centre offices have the largest carbon footprint.

Simply spending less time in or travelling to a city centre drives a drop in emissions from buildings and vehicles alike.

The higher a city’s car usage, the greater will be the immediate positive impact of the shift to home-based and local working The report concludes: “This research clearly shows that changing our behaviour is key to achieving our carbon targets,” says Matthew Dillon, Director of City Economics and Planning at Arup.

But shifting long-held patterns of behaviour takes time, and Mark Dixon believes that in order to prompt a change in mindset, governments and local authorities must continue to develop policies that help companies to expand hybrid working and invest in the required relevant infrastructure to support them.

“We need to create integrated approaches that leverage better, more sustainable transport networks,” he says. “We must have more joined-up thinking when it comes to transport planning and land usage, the development of safe cycling networks, better public transport connectivity, faster adoption of electric vehicles, the

accelerated production of renewable energy, retrofits of existing premises and better energy-performance for new buildings.”

It’s up to governments, businesses and public policy-setting bodies everywhere to consider the implications of these findings for the future of urban areas and working patterns, Dixon believes.

That means developing policies that empower individuals and businesses to make a positive difference every day, and working together to create and deliver integrated strategies with hybrid working at their heart to reduce work-related carbon emissions in cities across the world.

“The single biggest change we can all make is to provide people with the choice to work closer to where they need to be, and with lower impact on the environment,” says Dixon. “And that’s down to all of us.” >>>

The future of work:

A cleaner, hybrid future -$&+.#/0/1

!"#$%&'"(&)*+$#,+'*

www.planninginlondon.com

Issue 127 October-December 2023

75

SHAPING THE WORLD | CARBON SAVINGS FROM WORKING FROM HOME

>>> TRAVEL When it comes to transport-related emissions, car use and distance travelled are the main factors. Therefore, in cities with a higher rate of car use, a change to working close to home has a proportionately greater effect on emissions. Cities in the US showed the largest potential carbon savings, because commuting by car tends to be far more prevalent. In Atlanta, the potential reduction was estimated to be a staggering 90%. However, in the UK the potential savings were also considerable: 80% in the case of Glasgow.

BUILDINGS https://tinyurl.com/bd2wxup9 Occupancy is the biggest driver of the difference between buildingrelated emissions in a city centre workspace compared to those in local flex spaces.

The latter tend to have higher occupancy, therefore reducing the emissions per employee. This is a direct result of the rise in popularity of hybrid working, which leaves many central offices with considerable unused capacity, while utilisation rates for local workspaces are booming.

In Los Angeles, switching to working close to home was estimated to save 41% of building-related emissions compared with working five days a week at a city centre HQ. And in London, the ‘close to home’ scenario has the least associated building-related carbon emissions of all the models considered – 13% less than the five-day commuting scenario. n

Landmark report reveals hybrid working can reduce urban carbon emissions by a staggering 70% in the UK and up to 87% in the US New research by IWG and Arup into work-related carbon emissions vividly demonstrates the environmental benefits of the hybrid model and how it offers the possibility of a cleaner, brighter future.

Six cities across the UK and US were examined for the report including London, Manchester and Glasgow, as well as Los Angeles, Atlanta and New York City.

In partnership with

76

Planning in London

Download the report here: https://tinyurl.com/bd2wxup9

!"#$%&'&(#$)%$*)(+,$-$./#01#(2$"34(56$%&'&(#

789

The carbon savings of hybrid working in Los Angeles and London

Our carbon analysis considers emissions from transport and buildings in two cities: Los Angeles and London.

To understand the carbon footprint of new working patterns, we analysed the transport and buildings emissions related to hybrid working in two cities: Los Angeles and London.

Los Angeles

London

The city of Los Angeles covers a geographical area of 1,299 km² and is home to 3.8 million residents (United States Census Bureau 2021). Approximately 66.5% of the city’s working-age population is economically active.

With a population of 9.8 million people and a geographical area of 1,572 km2, London is the UK’s largest and most populous city. Among its large pool of working-age residents, 72.1% are economically active. (NOMIS Offcial Census and Labour Market Statistics 2021). In 2021, 36% of all employees in London – 1.9 million people – worked in offce-based industries (Offce for National Statistics 2022).

The McKinsey Global Institute estimates that 39% of the US workforce could work remotely for at least 1 day per week, and this fgure will be much higher in Los Angeles due to the concentration of industries that permit remote working (McKinsey Global Institute, 41). The American Community Survey found that 23.8% of working residents aged 16 or over in Los Angeles selected ‘work from home’ when asked about their mode of travel to work, exceeding the national work-from-home average of 17.9% (United States Census American Community Survey 2021).

As a result, London has the highest proportion of hybrid workers in the country, with 57.5% of London’s workforce reporting both travelling to work and working from home in a given work week. This is compared to the UK average of 42.7% (Offce for National Statistics 2022).

!"#$%&'&(#$)%$*)(+,$-$./#01#(2$"34(56$%&'&(#

789

The carbon savings of hybrid working in Los Angeles and London

In addition to these four scenarios, our analysis also includes a more environmentally-friendly ‘variation’ of the local workspace.

This variation applies to two scenarios – close to home and HQ, local workspace and home. In these ‘improved’ variations, we assume lower transport- and buildingrelated emissions.

For transport-related emissions, the ‘improved variation’ has a more sustainable transportation mode split, reducing the amount of people driving to a local workspace and increasing the number of people using sustainable modes like walking, cycling and public transport.

For building-related emissions, the ‘improved’ variation assumes that the local workspace buildings perform better than the standard offce stock in terms of carbon emissions, whereas the four base scenarios assume the average emissions from a standard offce building.

– For local workspaces in Los Angeles, we calculate the overall emissions for the 75th percentile of energy performance for offce buildings in California based on data collected in the Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey.

www.planninginlondon.com

– For local workspaces in London, we use the emissions for offces that are on the path to reach NetZero as defned by the UK Green Buildings Council. This represents the top 10-20% of the current offce stock. For both cities, the ‘improved variation’ assumes local workspaces do not use gas as part of their energy mix.

We have included these variations on the basis that the adoption of more environmentally friendly modes of transport, including walking and cycling, will accelerate, along with demand for more sustainable buildings and workspaces.

The ‘improved’ variation does not refect the current mode split or the current building portfolio. IWG should continually review the environmental footprint of its buildings and further changes in buildings and travel behaviour are required to meet these ambitious targets.

These interventions would support IWG’s sustainability vision to “act in a socially and environmentally responsible way” (IWG 2023).

Issue 127 October-December 2023

77

78

ADVICE

Advice >>>

www.planninginlondon.com

Issue 127 October-December 2023

79

London of the Future is a once-in-a-century publication from the London Society. The 昀rst edition was created in 1921 and proposed such ‘radical’ ideas as a green belt around London and a tunnel that would connect London to France.

100 years later, we asked a group of experts what could and should happen to London in the coming years and the responses have included natural solutions, different scales of economy, new forms of governance, better local food production, a radical rethink of education, improved housing provision and even dabbling in arti昀cial intelligence.

Contributors include: Anna Minton, Carolyn Steel, Claire Bennie, Baroness Lawrence, Gillian Darley, Grafton Architects, Hugh Pearman, Indy Johar, Jude Kelly, Kat Hanna, Mark Brearley, Mark Stevenson, Neal Shasore, Roma Agrawal, Sarah Ichioka, Smith Mordak, Tony Travers and Yasmin Jones-Henry.

londonsociety.org.uk