Regulars
The Journal of the London Planning & Development Forum Issue 139 October-December 2026
LEADERS page 5 FINCH page 7 ¡PILLO! page 35 PLANNING PERFORMANCE P36 ROGERS page 55 LP&DF pages 40
www.planninginlondon.com
London needs growth Leader page 5; Has the time come for a National Spatial Strategy? Dame Kate Barker page 58; Draft new London Plan page 42; New NPPF – implications for London page 46; James Cleverly quits shadow cabinet to run for London mayor page 34; St Paul’s & fabric The London Society page17 THE ESSENTIAL GUIDE TO DEVELOPMENT IN THE CAPITAL
Please subscribe: page 72
JOIN NOW FOR JUST £50 PER YEAR Under 30? Membership is FREE for 2 Years
CONNECTING PEOPLE WHO LOVE LONDON
Talks • Tours • Debates • Events • Socials
Explore London differently
Join important conversations
Meet people who care
Behind-the-scenes tours, walks and visits to places which are not usually open to the public.
Talks and debates on housing, transport, culture, the economy and the future of the city.
Architects, campaigners, historians, policymakers and curious Londoners in the same room.
Visit us: www.londonsociety.org.uk Founded in 1912, The London Society is one of the world’s oldest civic societies. We bring Londoners together to understand and celebrate the city’s rich heritage, engage in the issues shaping its future and champion a better London for everyone.
SCAN TO SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE WEEKLY NEWSLETTER: The London Society is a registered charity in England and Wales. Charity No. 206270
CONTENTS
PiL139 CONTENTS PAGE 5 LEADERS London needs growth, not just a theory about it; On your bikes!; Housing? What housing? 7 PAUL FINCH Situation normal – for architects! 9 What makes a good neighbourhood? Hinsley Lane, Cambridge
Something in the City | Lee Mallett page 18
Urban agglomeration benefits | Mark Willingale page 24
The next meeting of the London Planning & Development Forum is at 2pm on Tuesday 8th December at HTA Design 75 Wallis Road, E9 5LN (Overground to Hackney Wick)
Please email editor@planninginlondon.com if you would like to join in. For the agenda nearer the date please also look at planninginlondon.com >LP&DF
www.planninginlondon.com
OPINIONS 13 Reusing historic buildings | Helen Ensor 14 Why new policies represent a real shift | Riëtte Oosthuizen 15 Khan’s development arm | Ciaran Nerval 17 St Paul’s & fabric | The London Society 18 Something in the City | Lee Mallett 19 Why PM must solve housing mismatch | Suzanne Benson 20 A problem with the draft London Plan? | Simon Ricketts 21 The pro-development presumptions in the new NPPF | Simon Ricketts 23 Is socially-rented housing unfairly maligned? | Merlin Fulcher 24 Urban agglomeration benefits | Mark Willingale 26 The New NPPF and viability | Andrew Golland 30 BRIEFING The new London Plan: 10 changes that could shape London’s future | The London Society; Housing planning approvals fall to lowest level in more than a decade; Comments on the property and planning announcements made at the Conservative Party Conference; British Library extension gets under way; Architects appointed for Royal Docks floating neighbourhood; Devolution drive could shift 90,000 jobs out of London; Vape shops and gaming centres face tighter planning rules; New exemptions to Biodiversity Net Gain come into force; Quite a result for the Square Mile’s built environment community; New planning rules give homeowners more flexibility to install solar panels; Truman Brewery masterplan approved with data centre; Orms reveals plans to turn BT Tower into hotel 34 CLIPBOARD James Cleverly quits shadow cabinet to run for London mayor; Foster calls for nuclear revolution as renewables threaten ecosystems 35 ¡PILLO! Khan pledges to put women and girls at heart of London planning; What would a Reform government do to the English planning system?; Slow Horses Continues glamorise the Barbican; The most powerful, next page coherent and quietly revolutionary national >>> planning policy we've ever had, says Zack; pil 139 October-December 2026
3 3
CONTENTS CONTINUED
Residential development is unviable in nearly half of England
>>>
36 PLANNING PERFORMANCE The number of applications received and decided continue on down from the same quarter last year 40 LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM 41 Michael Edwards 42 Draft new London Plan; 46 New NPPF – implications for London; 48 New typologies for a changing London 55 ANDREW ROGERS More meanings of words without knowledge FEATURES 56 How to re-legalise housing | Nicholas Boys Smith 58 Has the time come for a National Spatial Strategy? | Kate Barker 60 JLL Living Roundup report | Karl Tomusk and Marcus Dixon 62 From planning data to property decisions | Ziad Nasr 64 The end of briefing panels? | Owen Ward
ABOVE: Shaping the World: Car parks to communities | Lichfields page 71
BOOKS 66 Royal Festival Hall A Living Icon, Edited by Eleanor Jolliffe and Sandy Rattray; Photography by Edmund Sumner; Foreword by Dan Cruickshank 67 Where We Live, Jonathan Glancey; Books received 69 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REFERENCE GUIDE 72 SUBSCRIPTION ORDER FORM 71 Shaping the World: Car parks to communities | Lichfields 75 ADVICE
Publishing Editors: Brian Waters, Paul Finch CBE and Lee Mallett editor@planninginlondon.com, planninginlondon@mac.com ISSN 1366-9672 (PRINT) ISSN 2053-4124 (DIGITAL) ISSUE 139 OCTOBER-DECEMBER 2026 www.planninginlondon.com
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. Agendas and minutes are at www.planninginlondon.com To attend please just email editor@planninginlondon.com
4
Planning in London
Editorial, subscriptions and advertising: Tel: 07957871477 Email: planninginlondon@mac.com Contents ©Land Research Unit Ltd or as stated
Chairman: Brian Waters MA DipArch (Cantab)DipTP RIBA MRTPI ACArch ppACA FRSA Principal: The Boisot Waters Cohen Partnership – brian@bwcp.co.uk Vice-Chairmen: Riette Oosthuizen HTA Design: riette.oosthuizen@hta.co.uk and Brian Whiteley Brian.Whiteley@planningaid.rtpi.org.uk
Member bodies Association of Consultant Architects Planning Officers’ Society/Association of London Borough Planning Officers London Councils British Property Federation Design Council CABE City o London Law Society
RIGHT: Royal Festival Hall A Living Icon page 66
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.
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
London needs growth, not just a theory about it Any Government, any Mayor, needs to put the issues of housing and business space shortages front and centre, equal with education, training, transport, crime and health
An unexpectedly swift resolution to Heritage England’s attempt to force a reconsideration of the City Corporation’s ‘jelly mould’ governing the height of new developments overlooking the Tower of London, was quite a result for the Square Mile’s built environment community, gamekeepers and poachers alike. The City’s immediate robust defence was highly effective. The two planning inspectors involved were able to convince housing minister Matthew Pennycook and his minions that all this was soundly tested in the Examination in Public earlier in the year and concluded there was no need to reopen the box. Or perhaps there was sudden realisation at MCHLG that the ‘theory of growth’ expounded by the newly unelected Prime Minister requires a City that must evolve in the way its occupants need. Just as every town and city in the UK should. Perhaps not to the extent or in the fashion the Tower of London’s client, William the Bastard, went about adjusting the Saxon built environment after 1066. The UK cannot really afford to retard one of the main engines of its economic growth. The City being a main conduit for fresh capital that might help with the ‘reindustrialising’ of the north. And while the UK Stock Exchange continues to wither, with the takeover of quoted UK built environment companies (such as Segro falling to Prologis, and Harworth being taken private by Peel Holdings, while illustrious names such as Derwent, LandSec and British Land may also be takeover targets), the market for prime office space in the Square Mile is going gangbusters. Record numbers of planning applications. Pre-lets. A looming shortage, with available space falling to a mere 2 per cent, and probably to zero by 2028, means London is also now running short of the office space companies want, in addition to failing to provide housing we need. London needs to wake up. It is becoming a victim of its success, while its inequalities increase. It continues to attract businesses, especially in the City where the polyvalent benefits of its ‘Destination City’ policies are making themselves felt. Go there on a Thursday evening and feel the vibe. Its traditional attractions, rule of law, the English language, and its markets opening when the East’s are going to bed and the West’s are waking up, have become more valued as global instability has increased. You’ll hear a lot of American accents around London today, and Russian over on the west side of town. And some of the City’s largest occupiers are now tech companies. In fact all companies in the City are effectively tech companies now. But serious problems have put cracks in the capital’s façade. Shortage of the right sort of offices in both the City and the West End is just one of many problems. Any Government, any Mayor, needs to put the issues of housing and business space shortages front and centre, equal with education, training, transport, crime and health. But voters need to be persuaded of the benefits of growth that requires new buildings. They represent life changing opportunity, homes, jobs, improved incomes. But people often do not want new homes and new workspace near them. The built environment lobby that New London Architecture is building is an example of a new voice that could be developed to get these arguments across. But only if it has something powerful to say in addition to expounding the merits of member organisations and the undoubted economic contribution they make. n
Planning in London has been published and edited by Brian Waters, Lee Mallett and Paul Finch since 1992
On your bikes! Unintended consequences producing outcomes the opposite of policy intentions is one of the key risks in making any policy. The Mayor of London’s Draft London Plan has finally realised that its 2021 policy on cycle parking requirements was just such a measure. ‘Vastly underused,’ says research from the London Property Alliance. ‘Well they would say that, wouldn’t they?’ you might think. But the LPA’s study of more that 1m sqm in 21 mod- >>>
www.planninginlondon.com
pil 139 October-December 2026
5
LEADERS
>>> ern office buildings with 9,000 spaces in central London show 76% were vacant at peak sum-
On what erroneous evidence was the misjudged 2021 cycle parking policy based?
mer time periods. 76 per cent! The statistic missing from LPA’s report however, is how much all that carbon-intensive and expensive basement concrete and steel involved in creating those white elephant spaces, may have ‘offset’ a large chunk of the carbon savings made by planet-conscious cyclists who did ride to work. That’s a calculation we’d like to see. Also, on what erroneous evidence was the misjudged 2021 policy based in the first place? And who thought it up? What is all that hugely expensive space going to be used for now? And will planners have the temerity to insist on applications for new uses, having been so wildly out of touch with reality in the first place? n
Housing? What housing? Instead of taxing house builders, government should think about what brakes they could remove from planning and tax policies
6
Planning in London
The recent refusal of a housing development providing more than 1,000 homes on the Old Kent Road in Southwark, by Berkeley Homes, was based on the low percentage of ‘affordable’ units. The project was, therefore, not responding to local demands. At about the same time, Taylor Wimpey, one of the country’s biggest house builders, announced that it was abandoning London as a place to build, citing the increase in costs and potential clawbacks on profits through ‘late-stage’ reviews – which could increase the number of affordable units provided. Given that the new housing pipeline in several London boroughs is now zero, you might think someone would have a broad-brush policy to encourage house builders and their activities. As ever, London mayor Sadiq Khan was quick to quote the impact he is having on the market through provision of finance. What he is not doing is directly procuring construction. The London County Council did; the Greater London Council did; why can’t his Greater London authority revive the tradition? That big idea informs Andy Burnham’s thinking. The prime minister has remembered something called ‘council housing’. We need more of it, he claims, and he is right. He has reached the same conclusion as Gordon Brown a lifetime ago. Unfortunately, Mr Brown provided miniscule funding to restart such development, so little was done before his own electoral demise. What Mr Burnham appears not to have thought about is the process by which public housing will be initiated, designed, delivered and financed. Nor has Angela Rayner. Her recent statement about how great it is to be a home-owner (in her case a double owner) sits oddly with her party’s stated dislike of right-to-buy (from which she benefited). Then we have the woeful example of how housing development, which some people seem to think is easy, helped to bankrupt Croydon Council and put it in special measures. Moreover, there has been no real thinking about the nature of the 21st century ‘council estate’, a phrase which the prime minister is not embarrassed to use – even if he has yet to outline a convincing implementation policy. What he might consider is the proportion of homes which should be sold on completion of a contemporary estate – to avoid the sort of social ghettos and no-go areas which gave these estates the reputation that resulted in little appetite to build any more. Much more thinking required. In the meantime, instead of taxing house builders and making life increasingly difficult, government should think about what brakes they could remove from planning and tax policies which are causing London’s house builders to vote with their feet. n
OPINION: SITUATION NORMAL – FOR ARCHITECTS! | PAUL FINCH
FINCH
Situation normal – for architects! A good approach to speeding up spatial planning would be to see what you could take out, instead of what you could put in. If it involves numbers, move it to building control, says Paul Finch Invited to give an informal talk to ACA councillors about the state of the profession earlier this year, I couldn’t help thinking about the last time we had war in the Middle East, massively fluctuating oil price rises, general global insecurity and chaotic domestic politics. That is to say 1973/4. Building Design ran a weekly update at the time called ‘How they are coping’, describing how practices were getting on with business despite all the bad things happening, including the three-day week. The feature was illustrated by a lit candle which diminished in height each week! In retrospect, the worst thing about that period was inflation, both in terms of the domestic economy, but more particularly the building economy – which Prime Minister Edward Heath blamed for exacerbating wider economic woes. Inflation today, though evident is nothing like what it was, a point of comfort for anybody who can remember the 1970s. In more recent decades, the profession has had to deal with the 2008 world financial crisis, the pandemic, Brexit and its uncertainties, and now Trumpian politics, war and always-with-us famine. And instead of irrelevant worries about vanishing oil resources, we have the global context of climate change and the move towards carbon-free energy sources. A question of data Talking of which, an interesting government initiative was recently launched, in conjunction with the RIBA, to do some thinking about the design of data centres. These are huge users of energy, so any competition should surely be thinking about this design challenge in the round: what will the energy sources be? The government would also like more thought given to the appearance and public elements of this new building type, more in keeping with the Victorian tradition of giving aesthetic distinction to infrastructure projects like pumping stations. So far, the only truly creative idea about reconciliation of energy use and data centres is an idea
www.planninginlondon.com
from Arup, which won a World Architecture Festival award in 2023. This proposed the re-use of redundant oil rigs as under-water data centres. This brilliant proposition was accompanied by analysis of the global supply of oil-rigs which might be expected to become redundant over the next few decades. This was not an architectural idea as such, but it had the characteristics of holistic thinking which frequently derives from collaborations with engineers of all descriptions. Happily, we now have an example of a proposed data centre, in Scotland, where the idea for the design comes from Ancient Greece. The Stoainspired proposal by Graeme Nicholls, which could be mistaken for several buildings by David Chipperfield, shows that 19th century attitude is alive and well, and historicist in a good way. It is not an essay in why high-tech buildings can have thatched roofs. All power to the architect’s elbow, and to the serendipity that gave us this design, just as government recognised that this is an important architectural area. Working with the RIBA is, with any luck, a welcome sign that politicians might be starting to realise that architects can help make things better. And even better collaborating with engineers. Norman Foster’s recent work on the idea of nuclear-fusion installations to power urban blocks springs to mind. Form, function and PFI Another part of government is looking at an old architectural chestnut: should architectural function as well as title be protected? Post-Grenfell, the Building Safety Regulator has it in mind to have a single regulator for all construction professionals, which might mean the end of the Architects’ Registration Board in favour of a wider body. Protection of function, at least for complex projects, could require planning and Building Regulation applications to be made by suitably qualified persons. Actually, given what you can building without planning permission, perhaps anything requiring permission should be subject to
Paul Finch CBE is programme director of the World Festival of Architecture and joint publishing editor of Planning in London
the same regime. Let’s see. An interesting area which will, in the near future, affect many public authorities, is the return of PFI-procured buildings to local authorities, health trusts and government departments. Typically, PFI schools, hospitals and other building types were provided on a 30-year lease, with the capital cost paid by the PFI consortium, and repair and maintenance undertaken as part of their contract. At the end of the lease period, the building must (in theory) be handed back in the condition in which it was in year two of the contract, that is to say in good working order. The public sector body which now owns the building will no longer pay rent, but will assume responsibility for future repair and maintenance. It would not be overly cynical to suggest that some PFI consortia will try to avoid spending anything towards the end of a contract, and there is therefore a likelihood of legal disputes about the condition of any particular building and who is responsible for what. No doubt surveys will be required, and in any event after 30 years there may be a review of building performance and whether capital works are needed – for example to deal with rising summer temperatures. They may be work here. Housing and planning There might also be work on the housing front, if incoming prime minister Andy Burnham’s ambitions in respect of affordable and social provision are anything other than political grandstanding. >>>
pil 139 October-December 2026
7
OPINION: SITUATION NORMAL – FOR ARCHITECTS! | PAUL FINCH
>>> You wonder whether PFI might be used as a financial mechanism to provide an alternative to penalising house builders via affordability demands. The problem is that PFI got a bad name because of the poor drafting of contracts, which gave consortia too much power to benefit from lucrative re-financing, with no clawback for the public purse. With smart thinking, this might still be possible. Otherwise, perhaps Burnham will ask Homes England to be far more proactive rather than merely acting as a conduit for Whitehall cash sloshing its way through to house builders. He might also have a word with Sir Stuart Lipton. The veteran developer has been working with an Arup team to develop a replicable housing model, the design of which is based on Marylebone mansion blocks: dense, not towers, popular, long-lasting. The concrete-frame/kit-ofparts proposition could be rolled out in any city. Repetition is a bonus, not a constraint. Meanwhile, what of the planning system, our politicians’ favourite whipping-boy for explaining the shortage of housing and delays to infrastructure? Most of this is bogus, not the result of the system, but of policies which gum it up. An obvious example is putting carbon strategies into spatial planning instead of Building Regulations. Having done that, it seemed logical to include Biodiversity Net Gain in the same way, even though there is no reason why planners, with their geography and sociology degrees, should know anything about energy calculations or beehives. A good approach to speeding up spatial planning would be to see what you could take out, instead of what you could put in. If it involves numbers, move it to building control. All to play for at Portland Place Meanwhile, what about cultural matters? The most important project for the profession, since the building of 66 Portland Place as the RIBA headquarters in 1934, is the institute’s House of Architecture Project (HOAP), being led by two former RIBA presidents, Simon Allford and Jack Pringle. Jack is also chairman of the RIBA Trust Board (until the end of 2026), but will continue to work with Simon to retain continuity of client representatives and fundraising focus. HOAP comprises three elements. First is the major retrofit of 66 Portland Place, occupied rentfree with more than 900 years on the lease still to run, courtesy of the Howard de Walden Estate. This is the first comprehensive improvement of the building, which has never had a sinking fund attached to it. It is scarcely surprising that it is costing £60 million to bring it up to 21st century standards, dealing with 27 level changes, asbestos, and M and E services no longer fit for purpose. Improving the building is a byproduct of the
8
Planning in London
main ambition of this part of the programme, which is to create a dynamic beacon for architectural activity and culture, attracting public and decision-makers as well as RIBA members in a new user-friendly, architecturally-focussed environment. Temporary and permanent exhibition facilities throughout the building, an improved lecture hall, and the addition of a good-quality restaurant and bar (with a separate entrance on Weymouth Street) are designed to transform the look and feel of the institute. The Library is being restored and there will be an adjacent room showing off ‘treasures’ of the RIBA Collections. The building will be stuffed with architecture, pointing to great work being done by the profession, and how architecture can make the present and future better. The overall competition-winning design is by Renato Benedetti, with Purcell providing executive and conservation services. Gilbert Ash are contractors. Opening is planned for late 2028.
Perhaps Burnham will ask Homes England to be far more proactive rather than merely acting as a conduit for Whitehall cash sloshing its way through to house builders The second element is a digitisation programme which will make everything happening in Portland Place available online to members, and to the public at large. In addition, work on digitisation of the RIBA Collections, comprising 4.5 million drawings, photos, and models, will continue, helped by funds from bodies including Bloomberg. This is a major cultural project in its own right. Both the above are part of an ongoing process. The third element of HOAP, whose fund-raising programme is likely to be formally launched towards the end of this year, is the ‘Museum of Architecture’, comprising the RIBA Collections referred to above. Currently in the Victoria & Albert Museum and the London Archive (with out-housing in facilities near Wandsworth Bridge), the V&A content has started moving to the National Archive at Kew, following a lease termination. The intention is then to create a permanent home for the collections in a central London location. This would include a gallery and visitor-friendly facilities, and would be intended to attract a significant public audience as well as the roughly 500 scholars a year that use the collections. How the funding and management will work It is not planned to spend member subscriptions on any of the HOAP elements, which in total are expected to cost about £100 million. The institute will fund £60 to £70 million directly, and plans to
raise £30 million in respect of the Museum of Architecture, and parts of the digitisation programme. The regeneration of 66 Portland Place is being funded via a bank loan, secured against the institute’s £100 million-plus endowment fund, created following the final disposal of NBS in 2020, and ring-fenced for use in respect of the aspirations of the RIBA charter. The endowment continues to make returns which can partly used to pay off the loan. As mentioned above, parts of the digitisation programme are already funded, but the £30 million fund-raising target would help to continue this work. The key target for fund-raising is the Museum of Architecture. The intention is to take space in a new central London development where there is a Section 106 requirement to accommodate a cultural use. Essentially, the developer receives planning permission for a building whose size is partly determined by the scale of the cultural use provision. Importantly, these contracts, which are approved by the local planning authority, mean the cultural user obtains the space (a) for a minimum period of 50 years; (b) it is rent-free; and (c) it is service charge-free. Various relevant developments have been researched, and the institute is confident that it can secure such a space prior to the start of a formal fund-raising programme. The RIBA would probably have to pay the cost of the fit-out and certainly manage the costs of running the facility, possibly six or seven days a week, hence the fund-raising campaign. The fund-raising target is ambitious, but then so is the project – an opportunity to reset the way the RIBA communicates with the public as well as members, focussing on its Charter objectives to advance architecture. The diminished influence of architects within the construction sector, and in their relationship with government, means the importance of cultural influence, via consistent demonstration of what architecture has to offer people, communities and the country, can scarcely be underestimated. Anniversary time RIBA Awards are 60 years old in 2026, and the Stirling Prize is 30. These awards are an important reminder not just of what the very best architecture can offer, but what good or very good ordinary can bring to all our lives. This sort of work will be prominently showcased in the new 66 Portland Place, and the architects will be invited to talk about their designs and celebrate their achievements, in a building which suffused with architectural ambition, an advertisement to the world about the benefits of design. n
WHAT MAKES A GOOD NEIGHBOURHOOD? | MATTHEW TRAUB
All photos: Jack Hobhouse
What makes a good neighbourhood? Hinsley Lane, Cambridge Matthew Traub, Director / Head of Sustainability at Allies and Morrison writes Designed for the Endowment Team at St John’s College, the neighbourhood at Hinsley Lane in West Cambridge is the city's largest Passivhaus development. It houses 245 students from three colleges within eight rows of terraced townhouses, framed around five shared gardens. The project was delivered by Cocksedge Building Contractors in 2025 and named 'Best New Neighbourhood' by the Cambridge Forum for the Construction Industry in 2026. In one of the UK’s fastest-growing cities, this is a
www.planninginlondon.com
notable accolade. But what does it take to deliver a genuinely "good neighbourhood," and how did our combined efforts lead to such a prestigious title? To unpack this, we have distilled a few of the core considerations that guided our approach.
Build community: Understand who you are building for and how they will live. For the St John's Endowment Team, the project represented their first opportunity to test a new investment model: utilising underused land holdings within the city to deliver Purpose-Built Student Accommodation (PBSA) for students and academic staff studying at neighbouring colleges. This moves beyond traditional collegiate structures to deliver
housing that shares the benefits of St John's land while leveraging their deep understanding of the uniquely intense experience of studying in Cambridge. As a result, the brief prioritised the delivery of townhouses. Not only do they provide a highly flexible rental asset that can be leased in varying configurations - individual homes, terraces, or clusters of townhouses around shared gardens - but they also foster a supportive model of shared living that prioritises student wellbeing. Individual study bedrooms offer personal refuge within familial-sized townhouses of four to seven residents, supported by generous shared kitchen, living, and dining spaces on the ground floor - space to spend time and relax. Front doors and south-facing
pil 139 October-December 2026
>>>
9
rear terraces link these rows, encouraging a sense of neighbourliness while overlooking communal gardens. These gardens provide a third layer of community, creating larger, informal spaces for social interaction across the wider site. The value of this approach was validated during a recent visit. Sitting on blankets beneath a tree on a sunny day, students from neighbouring townhouses popped between houses to borrow washing-up liquid, laugh, and chat. Consequently, it could be argued that one of our
10
Planning in London
most impactful contributions during the brief development phase was simply increasing the scale of this community: doubling the site's population beyond the local plan allocation to create a livelier, more vibrant neighbourhood with far more opportunities for chance encounters.
Enjoy environment and context: Draw identity from history and connect to context. Once home to a small farmstead - which sup-
plied fresh produce to the neighbouring city - the site’s original agricultural buildings were cleared long before we arrived, though vestiges of the productive landscape remained. By that point, over a century of westward urban expansion had drawn the city close to the site, leaving it as a ‘frayed edge’ in the street pattern of West Cambridge. Yet this expansion also gifted the site a remarkable strategic position: halfway between the historic colleges along the Backs and the growing technology and research hubs of West Cambridge. It sits
framed by the busy Adams Road cycleway to the north and the proposed Cambourne to Cambridge busway to the south. Our response was to mend this frayed edge while celebrating its agricultural heritage. We bisected the plot with ‘Hinsley Lane’ - connecting north to Adams Road, east to the city centre, and south toward the potential future transport link - while positioning buildings to integrate the mature trees, orchard, woodland, and hedgerows we inherited. This approach was complemented by a material
www.planninginlondon.com
palette borrowed from the Arts and Crafts buildings that characterise West Cambridge: red brick, clay tile, and white reconstituted stone. By leveraging these latent assets - connection, context, and character - the development establishes a unique identity, simultaneously rooted in its agricultural and architectural origins while seamlessly connected to the university city.
Understand value: Prioritise long-term investment that aligns envi-
ronmental and economic impact. The project’s success drew heavily from close collaboration between the client and the consultant team, testing opportunity and viability to tune both the brief and the design. Notable examples of this joint effort include: • Building fabric vs. fittings: The project followed a clear mandate to channel funds into aspects of the scheme that last the longest, namely the external envelope of the building. • Passivhaus performance: Although Passivhaus >>>
pil 139 October-December 2026
11
WHAT MAKES A GOOD NEIGHBOURHOOD? | MATTHEW TRAUB >>>
was not in the original brief, prioritising investment in the external envelope naturally led the design team to consider this fabric-first strategy. We assessed three servicing options across a range of technical, practical, and financial metrics: a Building Regulations baseline, a low-energy scheme, and a Passivhaus scheme. The uplift in capital expenditure - balanced against lifetime energy and carbon savings - was compelling enough to incorporate Passivhaus into the project brief. Structural solutions: Early pricing compared three structural systems to balance financial and practical opportunities: load-bearing masonry, a concrete frame, and Cross Laminated Timber (CLT). While masonry offered the lowest capital expenditure, CLT offered potential programme savings that would in turn reduce costs. When combined with its lightweight nature (reducing substructure requirements), opportunities for fire separation, reduced embodied carbon, attractive exposed finishes, and exceptional airtightness (achieving 0.08 ACH - 7.5 times better than Passivhaus requirements and over 50 times better than Building Regulations), CLT ultimately delivered the greatest overall value. Repetition, rhythm, and difference: We have long understood the manifold benefits of repetition in construction, but utilising it effectively requires careful management to enrich design. Here, we used atypical accessible townhouses to introduce variation along the laneway where access is easiest. This allowed the typical four- and seven-bedroom townhouses to form a rhythmic backdrop to the gardens, capturing the pragmatic and economic advantages of repetition. Value improvement: Embedding a financial model within a design agenda can be challenging, often leading to the difficult process of ‘value engineering’. In this instance, we addressed the challenge by directly increasing the project's yield - optimising attic space within the seven-bed townhouses to deliver additional study bedrooms and increase revenue. This value creation enabled us to safeguard high-quality external materials and retain our ambitious environmental credentials, driving up the overall quality and viability of the scheme.
Environmental placemaking: Leverage social, environmental, and economic considerations to deliver good neighbourhoods. The approaches outlined above align with a
12
Planning in London
wider line of inquiry that informs our approach to delivering good neighbourhoods: leveraging social, environmental, and economic considerations to curate a set of characteristics distinct to Hinsley Lane. The townhouse typology, connections to the surrounding city that promote walking and cycling, the density of occupation that optimises the site to create a sense of community, the integration of existing flora to capture biodiversity and generate biophilic benefits for students, and the choice of materials that balance longevity with low embodied carbon all become essential components of the identity of a place thousands of students will call ‘home’ during formative years in their academic careers. This approach is perhaps best exemplified by our response to the sun - a consideration that is becoming increasingly important to neighbourhood design. While it would have been typical to line Hinsley Lane with the front doors of houses (akin to Portugal Place in Cambridge), we instead oriented the houses into east-west terraces. We addressed the laneway with gable ends, delivering north- and south-facing study bedrooms that avoid the lowangle solar gains from the east and west that are inherently harder to control. Consequently, we could manage solar gains far more effectively through brick piers and horizontal shading over south-facing windows, creating confident, symmetrical elevations above south-facing terraces. To the north, we dropped the eaves line to invite sunlight into garden spaces during winter, defining the northern facades with characterful, asymmetric dormer windows peering up the lane. That this orientation also aligns with the site's topography was an added benefit - allowing us to step the terraces down the slope to simplify access, ease construction, and channel rainwater through swales along the gardens and laneway.
This creates an approach to neighbourhood design where no single element in this orchestra of considerations shouts louder than the rest; rather, each plays its part in a careful harmony. n “In many ways, Hinsley Lane shies from attention: it is serene and restrained, a place of profound tranquillity, that is somehow set apart from the world. More than anything, it is a place that is tuned to support wellbeing and help students do their best work. But it is also a powerful example of institutional landowners taking a long-term view. As universities grapple with the demands of net zero, student wellbeing, and urban integration, Hinsley Lane offers a quietly persuasive model of how architecture might rise to the challenge.“ – Jonny Anstead, Founding Director, Town
OPINION: REUSING HISTORIC BUILDINGS | HELEN ENSOR
Can reusing historic buildings be a win for changes in planning? Good outcomes for heritage projects must not be the unintended casualty of changes, says Helen Ensor Since April 2026, planning appeals in England have operated under a more front-loaded written representations procedure. The Regulations of 2026 were introduced to make appeals faster, strengthen the role of local decision-making and limit the scope for applicants to introduce new evidence after refusal. Inspectors are now expected to determine appeals largely on the basis of the material submitted with the original application. Allied to this, and without legislative changes but as a matter of common practice, many local authorities are making pre-application engagement essentially mandatory. Applications submitted without the benefit of preapplication advice, and where any aspect of the proposal is in conflict with any policy, the application will be refused without further discussion. The purpose is understandable. Government wants issues identified earlier, applications prepared more thoroughly and appeals resolved with less delay. Few would object to better-quality submissions or greater certainty. But the reforms are changing behaviour. If applicants believe unresolved issues will be difficult to address later, they may invest much more heavily before submission, reduce the ambition of proposals, or decide not to proceed at all. Projects involving listed buildings, conservation areas and sensitive historic places are rarely straightforward. They require judgment about significance, design quality, viability, sustainability, building performance and public benefit. They often improve through discussion between applicants, local planning authorities, statutory consultees and communities. A system that places greater weight on getting everything right at the outset does not always sit comfortably with this iterative process. The issue is not confined to heritage. Complex brownfield, regeneration and town-centre schemes also depend on applicants being willing to navigate uncertainty and technical constraint. What makes heritage different is that complexity is the norm rather than the exception. Historic buildings and places frequently require proposals to evolve through careful refinement. The consequences of a more front-loaded system are therefore likely to become visible here first. There are already signs that heritage proposals are being filtered out earlier. Applicants with ambitious schemes may enter pre-application discussions and receive advice identifying difficult
www.planninginlondon.com
questions around significance, impact or policy compliance. In a system where those issues appear to need resolution before submission, and where the opportunity to strengthen a case on appeal is reduced, some will scale back, delay or abandon proposals. The result may not be more refusals, but fewer schemes reaching determination, public scrutiny or formal assessment. This is particularly troubling for the retrofit and reuse of historic buildings. Energy-efficiency measures, low-carbon heating and fabric upgrades often require careful balancing against heritage considerations. If early advice suggests a long process, uncertain outcome or onerous evidence burden, owners may choose not to proceed. That matters because existing buildings are central to climate objectives. Retaining and adapting them avoids the embodied carbon costs of demolition and new construction while supporting local identity, economic vitality and community wellbeing. A typical listed building retrofit illustrates the point. An owner may wish to improve performance through insulation, secondary glazing or a low-carbon heating system. Early engagement may identify concerns about historic fabric or visual impact, but the eventual solution often emerges through dialogue between conservation specialists, planners and the applicant. If the perceived cost, time and risk of resolving every major issue before submission becomes too great, the project may never come forward. The planning system would not have refused it; it would simply have discouraged it. That would undermine the outcomes the policy is trying to promote: retrofit, regeneration and sustainable growth. The buildings with the greatest potential for reuse are often those with the greatest planning complexity. If applicants are deterred from engaging with that complexity, adaptation can become harder than building anew. A reform intended to improve efficiency could, paradoxically, make sustainable reuse less achievable. Successful heritage projects often depend on creative responses to difficult sites. They test assumptions, explore new technologies and reconcile conservation with contemporary needs. Such proposals need dialogue, technical expertise and a willingness to work through uncertainty. A planning culture that prizes certainty above all else may favour simpler schemes and discourage projects
Helen Ensor is Director of Heritage Consultancy at DIA and a former conservation officer and Historic England Inspector
more capable of delivering greater public benefit. The role of conservation expertise is therefore critical. The 1975 film The Conservation Game is a reminder that conservation was once envisaged as practical problem-solving. Roger Tilly, England’s first conservation officer, described himself as a link between the local authority, owners, occupiers and the public: someone able to provide technical advice, identify funding and coordinate action. The language of the film is dated, but the principle remains relevant. Conservation should not be experienced as a barrier. It should be a partnership that helps good proposals succeed. None of this means the appeal reforms are misguided. Better applications, earlier engagement and proportionate appeals are sensible aims. The question is whether the reformed system recognises the distinctive nature of heritage-led development and whether local planning authorities have the specialist capacity to support it. If applicants are expected to front-load evidence and resolve difficult issues early, they need constructive advice, clear expectations and officers with the expertise and time to engage properly. If we are serious about net zero and sustainable growth, adapting historic buildings should not be harder than starting again. We require a planning framework that rewards early engagement without closing down flexibility. Investment in heritage expertise, and greater certainty for robust retrofit proposals often need collaborative problem-solving. Efficiency should not be measured only by the speed of decisions, but by the quality of outcomes the system enables; reusing historic buildings ought to be among the clearest planning wins. If procedural change results in fewer heritage projects, fewer retrofit schemes and less innovation, the system will have streamlined the process at the expense of some of its most sustainable opportunities. n
pil 139 October-December 2026
13
OPINION:WHY NEW POLICIES REPRESENT A REAL SHIFT | RIËTTE OOSTHUIZEN
Why new policies represent a real shift A shift to mid-rise as London’s default residential typology could be genuinely transformative, says Riëtte Oosthuizen A draft of the new London Plan was released on 16 July, with responses due by mid-September. Exactly a month later, on 16 August, the revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) followed. A new London Plan for the next decade should set out a vision that reflects the challenges the city will face. The sweltering heat we have all recently experienced is one stark reminder of the need to be future ready. If it wasn’t clear before, it is now: we are no closer to hitting the housing growth targets set out by Labour in 2024, simply because delivery in the current economic climate – particularly in London – was never realistic. To its credit, the new London Plan is honest about these challenges. Rather than adopting the government’s Standard Method housing needs estimate of around 84,884 homes per year, the draft proposes a target of 558,000 new homes by 2037. Even this more modest figure is only considered deliverable if planned transport infrastructure keeps pace – including the West London Orbital (supporting 25,000 homes), the Bakerloo line extension to Hayes (60,000 homes) and what is referred to as the ‘metroisation’ of south central London (30,000 homes). A new Optimisation Framework for sites larger than 0.25ha sets out density ranges across different contexts, based on sustainable access measures. This is not a return of the Density Matrix of the 2004-21 London Plan – criticised for being both overly prescriptive and too easily circumvented. The key change is not the existence of ranges, but the weight now attached to them. New era: shift to mid-rise as London’s default residential typology could be transformative The new plan states that “failure to meet the requirements of this policy should be given very significant weight in planning decisions”. Minimum net densities are precisely that: minimal. Boroughs may argue that site constraints justify positioning at the lower end of a range, but the plan explicitly warns that this “is not expected to be a default position across large parts of a borough”. The density figures themselves are substantial. In a Setting A location at Sustainable Access Measure
14
Planning in London
(SAM) 2, the lowest applicable connectivity band, the minimum is 220 habitable rooms per hectare – roughly 55 dwellings per hectare for an average twobed home. At the upper end, a Setting F location at SAM 5B reaches 1,300 habitable rooms per hectare, or 325 dwellings per hectare. For context, many suburban locations near stations in zones three and four currently average 25 dwellings per hectare. The step change is significant. Mid-rise – defined as four to nine storeys – is envisioned as the new normal. This is politically charged territory. Mid-rise is precisely the typology that suburban communities resist most vocally: visible enough to transform local character, yet without the landmark quality of a tall building to justify the change in public debate. The plan’s response is to mandate it through the Optimisation Framework, while providing the London Context Map as a tool for borough design code-making – shaping how density is achieved, rather than whether it must be.
Non-negotiable measure The draft plan aligns closely with the new NPPF, where the density message is equally unambiguous. Higher-density growth in sustainable, wellconnected locations is non-negotiable. Policy L3 (Achieving Appropriate Densities) requires residential and mixed-use proposals to actively contribute to increased density. Exceptions are tightly drawn: where prevailing density is already very high, where the nature of the accommodation precludes it or where it would conflict with other NPPF policies.
Acton Gardens phase 5, Ealing - HTA Design.
Riëtte Oosthuizen is partner, planning, at HTA Design
Crucially, character is explicitly prevented from being deployed as grounds to resist densification. Minimum densities of 35 dwellings per hectare are introduced near well-connected stations, rising to 45 dwellings per hectare where stations offer eight or more trains an hour. Taken together, these two documents represent a genuine philosophical shift. For years, density policy has been hedged with caveats, softened by local discretion and vulnerable to character-based objections that have served as a polite veto on change. That era now appears to be over, on paper at least. The harder question is delivery. The frameworks are now in place. What remains to be seen is whether the funding, infrastructure and political will can match the rhetoric. If they can, the shift to mid-rise as London’s default residential typology could be genuinely transformative. If they cannot, we will simply have produced a more elegantly worded set of targets that we failed to meet – and that would be the least surprising outcome of all. n First published in Property Week with kind consent
OPINION: KHAN’S DEVELOPMENT ARM | CIARAN NERVAL
Khan’s development arm sparks optimism about London housing Ciaran Nerval explains that the development arm of the GLA will work in tandem with previous and ongoing attempts to kickstart affordable housebuilding in the capital It’s no secret that housing development in London has fallen to a pretty low level in recent years; a report from the Centre for Policy Studies reveals that housing starts in the capital fell by a whopping 72% in 2024-25. However, London mayor Sir Sadiq Khan has unveiled his latest play to boost housebuilding, with City Hall’s launch earlier this month of a housing development arm. Originally proposed by Khan in 2023, the launch represents the first step in City Hall’s drive to get its hands dirty and play a more direct role in development. The development arm of the Greater London Authority (GLA) will work in tandem with previous and ongoing attempts to kickstart affordable housebuilding in the capital. These initiatives comprise an emergency package of measures Khan revealed last year that includes lowering the affordable homes quota for the ‘fast-track’ planning route in the capital from 35% to 20% – although this now faces a legal challenge from a number of London boroughs. Details about the City Hall Developer initiative remain sketchy, but it has been confirmed that the body will be backed by almost £2bn in government grants and loans with a low 0.1% interest rate to boost housing development. The mayor, inspired by his recent trade visit to Singapore, says the development arm will be modelled on a ‘Singaporean-style’ approach to housebuilding, which he claims has enabled “sustained, large-scale delivery of housing” in the city state, where the government builds around 80% of homes
It’s a more creative way of thinking about delivering housing. – Brian Berry, Federation of Master Builders and owns the majority of land. The City Hall Developer initiative was launched with an initial £100m investment into the Silvertown Partnership at the Royal Docks in east London, where 7,000 homes are planned. Khan says this is the first in a pipeline of sites where he plans to support residen-
www.planninginlondon.com
tial development through the GLA’s housing arm. So, what does Singapore’s housing model look like and, more importantly, can it be replicated in London?
Singapore’s approach Singapore’s public housing authority, the Housing and Development Board, was founded in 1960 shortly after the city attained self-government. Facing a housing crisis, the board completed 21,000 flats within three years, rising to 54,000 two years later. This was helped by a strong, topdown approach and a Land Acquisition Act allowing land to be purchased at low prices. It has now developed around 1.3 million homes across Singapore, which the government has sold to citizens, although the state does still own and let out some properties. The city boasts one of the highest home ownership rates in the world. Rico Wojtulewicz, director of policy at the National Federation of Builders, says the launch of London’s development arm is “brilliant” news for housebuilding, although he is reluctant to believe City Hall can develop homes to the same levels as Singapore. “I can see [City Hall] contributing a very large amount of new housing,” he says. “It’s certainly not going to be 80% of homes, but if they could just deliver 20%, that would be a real benefit.” He adds that taking Singapore’s approach to affordable housing provision could be a missed opportunity if Khan does not also consider the island city’s approach to both tall and dense development. Danny Pinder, director of policy at Real Estate:UK (RE:UK), believes Khan’s Singapore-style intervention is probably “a bit hyperbolic”. He adds: “I don’t think we’re talking about mass state provision of housing in London. What we’re talking about is government taking a much more interventionist approach. It demonstrates that [City Hall] recognises there is a need to get skin in the game and get involved through partnerships.” Olivia Harris, chief executive of housing association Dolphin Living, says a more realistic and welcome approach would be if City Hall’s development body is “able to influence – through innovative design and funding structures – how the rest of
Ciaran Nerval is a senior reporter for Property Week
London is built”. She adds: “It will be really interesting to see how the mayor uses this opportunity and investment to increase the delivery of affordable housing, in particular key worker housing, and if this is therefore a model that can be replicated for other opportunities.” Despite some initial scepticism, most industry figures Property Week spoke to seem to agree that the City Hall Developer initiative is a welcome step in addressing the capital’s housebuilding shortfall.
While it’s definitely a positive step, the wider picture needs to improve. – Jordan McCay, RE:UK Data published by JLL earlier this month reveals the scale of the problem, with housing construction starts across London falling to a mere 6,325 homes in the year to March. James Stevens, director for cities at the Home Builders Federation, calls the launch “very welcome and necessary”, arguing that the move should go some way to “address London’s acute housing crisis, safeguard and create jobs, support skills development and increase investment”. One possible sticking point Stevens raises is whether the body will have the “expertise to bring forward public sector land faster and promote development by the public and private sector”. But he concedes: “If it can do this, it will play an important part in reversing the decline in housing delivery in the capital.” Brian Berry, chief executive of the Federation of Master Builders, singles out the £2bn grant and lowinterest loan funding as particularly significant. “It’s a >>>
pil 139 October-December 2026
15
OPINION: KHAN’S DEVELOPMENT ARM | CIARAN NERVAL
>>> very interesting model,” he says. “It’s a more creative way of thinking about delivering housing in a market where we’re building a pitiful number of homes in the capital. The only way we’re going to build social homes is for government to step up, and this seems like a good initiative to see how that might work correctly.” Wojtulewicz says that the cash should “kickstart the ambition” for those looking to build, which may mean the process can “start very quickly” where schemes have planning permission in place. He adds: “The market doesn’t have that ability to access low-interest loans. So the government has recognised the viability challenge. They’re really moving the goalposts, because they realise how difficult it is to build.” Headwinds hit development RE:UK policy officer Jordan McCay says the funding has generated excitement among the industry
body’s members, but warns that the capital injection alone won’t solve London’s wider development issues, which have been driven by a number of headwinds. “Delivery is constrained because of the state of the market and how policy and regulation are framed,” she says, adding that London may still see low levels of housebuilding despite the new funding and low-interest loans becoming available, “because everything else is acting against it”. She concludes: “While it’s definitely a positive step, the wider picture needs to improve as well.” McCay argues that the biggest benefit of a new development body will be that those in charge will get to see London’s housing conundrum from a developer’s point of view. “It can be a positive that City Hall will be exposed to the challenges the rest of the sector is facing,” she says. “As far as affecting the industry as a whole, it’s the lessons that they’ll learn from this
and the policy changes that come as a result that will go far in making sure London is developing on the scale it was years ago.” Wojtulewicz agrees, arguing that the initiative should wake up policymakers to the specific challenges in the planning system. “This will help our politicians understand the complexity of the planning system and the development process, and finally understand how valuable and necessary planning reform is to building enough homes,” he says. There could be lessons for other UK cities, Wojtulewicz adds. He says the launch is a significant moment and could establish a “really interesting dynamic as to how devolution can work in most of our country, and the powers that can be given to develop areas”. n
First published in Property Week; reproduced with kind permission. © 2026 Metropolis International Group
Silver lining: the regeneration plan for the Royal Docks in east London’s Silvertown will be the first to receive funding from the recently launched City Hall Developer initiative.
16
Planning in London
OPINION: ST PAUL’S & FABRIC | THE LONDON SOCIETY
St Paul’s, fabric and the changing life of a sacred building It is not quite the “rave in the nave” some of the reaction might suggest, writes The London Society A new partnership between St Paul’s Cathedral and the nightclub fabric brings contemporary music into one of London’s most recognisable sacred spaces. Beyond the predictable arguments about whether the two belong together is a wider question about how faith buildings remain part of everyday London for people who may never attend a service. On 29 October, The Cinematic Orchestra will perform beneath the dome of St Paul’s Cathedral. It will be a seated, minimally amplified concert, the first in a new four-year partnership that makes Farringdon nightclub fabric the Cathedral’s exclusive contemporary music partner through to 2030. It is not quite the “rave in the nave” some of the reaction might suggest. St Paul’s and fabric have already worked together on performances by RY X and Patti Smith, and the Cathedral says the programme is intended to introduce new audiences to the building. The first newly announced concert gives us a better idea of what that will mean in practice. We have written before about London’s faith buildings as civic infrastructure, providing meeting rooms, food banks, community support and somewhere to gather alongside their religious role. The St Paul’s partnership takes that conversation somewhere slightly different. Can these buildings also become part of London’s leisure and cultural infrastructure? For many Londoners, a church, mosque, synagogue or temple may play little part in their life. Yet these buildings remain prominent features of neighbourhoods across the city, and often contain spaces quite unlike anything being built today. Music, exhibitions, talks and performances offer another reason to cross the threshold. Their attraction as venues comes partly from the fact that they are not ordinary venues. A concert beneath Wren’s dome is shaped by the architecture and history around it, as well as by the Cathedral’s continuing religious use. That identity also places limits on what can comfortably happen there. People who worship in these buildings, or attach particular spiritual and ceremonial significance to them, will not necessarily agree on where those limits should lie.
www.planninginlondon.com
We have some experience of this ourselves. The London Society held its 2025 Love Letters to London awards in the OBE Chapel at St Paul’s. Bringing writers, actors, judges and guests into the Cathedral for an event celebrating London felt entirely natural, while still feeling unmistakably like an occasion taking place within St Paul’s rather than simply another hired venue. St Paul’s itself is hardly short of visitors. Elsewhere in London, however, the issue is more pressing. Historic faith buildings are expensive to maintain and the communities around them continue to change. At the same time, affordable and distinctive spaces for music, performance and other shared activities are not easy to find. The answer will be different for every building. Some will accommodate a much wider programme than others, depending on their congregation, architecture and purpose. What is interesting about St
Paul’s is the decision to test that boundary through a long-term partnership rather than an occasional one-off concert. The London Society will be watching how that develops over the next four years. If fabric can bring people through the doors who might otherwise never think of entering St Paul’s, the experiment could offer useful lessons for other faith buildings trying to remain active parts of London life without becoming something entirely different. n
pil 139 October-December 2026
17
OPINION: SOMETHING IN THE CITY | LEE MALLETT
Something in the City – a model for mayors everywhere Had Michael Cassidy been London’s Mayor rather than ‘Something in the City’, we might now be living in a different city, writes Lee Mallett This became clear at the City Architecture Forum’s sold-out inaugural summer party celebrating its 35th anniversary at The London Centre in July. It kicked off with a ‘Conversazione’ between myself and Michael Cassidy, CAF Founder and former Chairman of the Policy and Resources Committee, City of London Corporation. Cassidy’s ability to seize the day, when he was Chairman of the Planning and Transportation Committee in the late 1980s, to push through new policy and simply lead effectively, left its mark not only on the City of London, transformed on his watch, but on many of the capital’s major urban projects in the last 44 years, including Wembley Stadium, the Millennium Bridge, Crossrail, each of which he had a hand in. As founder of the Forum in 1991, Michael established an organisation which, he reminded CAF members; ‘Firstly, is not a campaign. And secondly is self-educating, involving building visits and debates, and therefore is not partisan in any sense.’ CAF was founded in the sustained aftermath of the Prince of Wales’ highly critical intervention over the redevelopment of Paternoster Square when he made the claim that post-war development had caused greater damage than ‘the Luftwaffe’. The Prince also criticised the new wave of Big Bang-related development in the City, unleashed five years earlier by a new City Plan, and the ensuing public spat between ‘classical’ and ‘modern’ approaches to contemporary architecture became known as ‘Style Wars’. Cassidy had personally driven that new plan through the City’s somewhat hide-bound civic culture, forearmed with the knowledge of what Big Bang was likely to require of the City’s built environment. So it proved. The five years between 1986’s Big Bang and the disappointment of the early 90s recession, saw an unprecedented third of the City redeveloped under the City Plan’s aegis. Cassidy felt the Forum would be a (studiously impartial!) way of improving the quality and understanding of what was required of architecture in the new era, driven by a new focus on occupiers’ needs which featured prominently in the Forum’s early roundtable dinners which he chaired. Michael’s vision was, however, utterly different
18
Planning in London
from what the Prince had in mind. In a meeting with Charles and his advisers, Michael (alongside his appointee Peter Rees as City Planner) recalled the Prince pulling from a drawer The Royal Academy’s 1942 plan for the City. This initiative was led by Sir Edwin Lutyens with other RA architect members, with neo-classical buildings lining Hausmann-style boulevards – totally contradicting the City’s medieval street patterns and the needs of the City’s new occupiers. In the circumstances not many politicians would have - as Cassidy subsequently did - invite the Prince of Wales to speak at the annual Planning & Transportation Committee dinner in Mansion House. A tactic he maintains ensured the Prince was ‘inside the tent looking out’ where he might cause less damage. As the years passed and developers found inspiration in a new cohort of contemporary architects, buildings ‘of much greater quality’ with greater emphasis on occupiers’ needs were developed. Charles’ influence, and that of ‘Style Wars’, faded. To achieve his vision, Cassidy told CAF members he had tolerated absolutely ‘no internal political opposition’ to the new City Plan’s ambitions. He quashed any that arose with the threat of Canary Wharf, whose initial proposer, larger-than-life Texan developer G Ware Travelstead made no bones in telling City grandees: ‘I’m going to be taking all the banks I can from you guys, and I’m going to build Wall Streeton-water.’ It was a threat that, like the Prince’s intervention, was eventually to fade, and become more of a peaceful, complimentary, co-existence as the City more than rose to the Wharf’s challenge. Cassidy said ‘it warms my heart’ to see the likes of HSBC and a key legal practice returning to the City. Other existential threats were also vanquished. He persuaded Tony Blair and New Labour for example to remove the long-standing manifesto threat to abolish the Corporation. And to promote new legalisation to amend the City’s constitution to create a business vote (‘draining the swamp’ as Cassidy put it). London’s boroughs were also wooed with money from the City’s coffers, earning the Corporation more of a welcome in greater London.
In Q&As, a stalwart Cassidy did not hesitate to take up the cudgels again to counter today’s threats. He condemned MCHLG Minister for Housing and Planning, Matthew Pennycook’s recent bombshell instruction in July to the City to stall adoption of City Plan 2040 and re-examine the impact of tall buildings on the Tower of London - a long running battle between the heritage lobby and the Corporation. ‘I was responsible for reforms that in the modern age have produced buildings of fantastic architectural quality, in volumes that have attracted big players from around the world. It is vital for the future growth of this country that the City is allowed to continue that process,’ said Cassidy. ‘And for this junior minister to stop the progress of our next plan (City Plan 2040), by insisting on re-opening a matter we thought settled, has to be tackled. We’ve got to come out strongly and have this reversed because I think it is a bad mistake by this Government.’ A threat that was speedily removed following the Minister’s acceptance of the two Planning Inspectors, who in September after a further daylong enquiry, rejected Heritage England’s objections to the new City Plan’s policies guiding tall buildings on the southern edge of the City cluster. The City claimed more than a million sq ft of office proposals were threatened by HE’s challenge to the City Plan 2040’s policies which had already been well rehearsed in the preceding Examination in Public. Cassidy launched a new personal memoir as a part of CAF’s anniversary celebrations. Titled Something in the City this reflects on aspects of his life and times as the City’s leading politician during its most transformative post-war era. Copies are available both in the Barbican bookshop (lower level) and Reception at NLA London Centre £5. n
OPINION: WHY PM MUST SOLVE HOUSING MISMATCH | SUZANNE BENSON
Why PM must solve housing mismatch We need to build for a wider range of households, leaning into social and economic changes, to provide the products and tenures most needed, says Suzanne Benson Much of the debate around housing still centres on how many homes we build. But as the sector is all too aware, the numbers are only part of the challenge. Prime minister Andy Burnham’s council homes pledge sends a clear message that housing will sit near the top of the new government’s agenda. Targeting vacant public land and building at higher density across England’s towns is a welcome ambition. But underneath, there is a wider mismatch that more council homes may not solve: between the homes coming forward and the way people actually live. Housing-led schemes that would have moved forward a few years ago are now being paused or reworked, as developers look more closely at the anticipated occupier profile. Weak demand acts as a brake on delivery, raising an important question of whether the homes that do get built really reflect future demand profiles and how people want to live today. People are reaching housing independence later, often in their thirties, by which point work, family and affordability pressures shape more complex needs. Mid-life households have become more varied – spanning dual-earners, single parents, renters in their forties and multi-generational families – yet supply still leans towards a narrower model. Movement through the system has slowed too, with
many older households staying in larger homes because suitable alternatives are limited. These shifts are becoming more important because of the wider economic picture. The government’s Invest 2035 Strategy is reshaping where demand will intensify, concentrating activity in places best positioned to support key sectors including advanced manufacturing, defence, life sciences and clean energy. As jobs move, housing demand will inevitably follow. In England’s ‘youngest’ places outside London, economic activity in these sectors has grown more than 40% faster than nationally, and seven of the 20 youngest areas outside the capital are already among the 10 places with the highest levels of activity in these key sectors. From a commercial perspective, you cannot optimise margins without understanding demand Yet demand is not rising evenly. Instead, it is concentrating in specific places – often where the housing offer is least aligned with the people who aspire to live there. In the youngest places outside London, flats make up a proportionately larger share of recent delivery. Despite this, we are not yet seeing this supporting clear pathways into stable housing. Entry-level options remain limited, and build to rent still accounts for only around 2% of the private rented sector, concentrating in cities such as Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds. In smaller, fastgrowing places, the offer is thinner, making it harder
Council houses: Binsey Walk, Southmere, Thamesmead SE28 GLC Department of Architecture and Civic Design 1967-8 (dsemolished)
www.planninginlondon.com
Suzanne Benson is national head of real estate at Trowers & Hamlins
to attract talent and for people to settle. A similar pattern appears in the places with the highest share of mid-career-aged people in localities outside the South East, including Trafford and Milton Keynes. In these places, the jobs base is growing fast, pulling demand along with it, but delivery is still skewed towards primarily large houses. The model still assumes a housing journey many households do not follow. At the same time, economic activity in some of these areas is picking up. In Barrow-in-Furness, defence investment is expected to bring younger workers into an ageing housing market, while many formerly rapidly ageing parts of the South West are seeing growth in marine, advanced manufacturing and clean energy industries. In both cases, demand is shifting quickly, but the housing offer has been slow to adjust. The result is a growing mismatch between areas experiencing tangible current and anticipated growth and what is being built. From a commercial perspective, you cannot optimise margins without a keen understanding of demand. We also need to build for a wider range of households, leaning into social and economic changes, to provide the products and tenures most needed. Burnham’s ‘No 10 North’ will have the mandate and – if his recent speeches are anything to go by – the will to move fast on supply. Our new PM’s appetite for devolution could also enable local leaders in areas of high demand to make strategic planning interventions. This creates a real opportunity for a voice in next-stage discussions – both from the real estate sector and from the communities and the potential investors who can benefit from a plan designed to support and enable targeted economic growth. n First published in Property Week
pil 139 October-December 2026
19
OPINION: A PROBLEM WITH THE DRAFT LONDON PLAN? | SIMON RICKETTS
A problem with the draft London Plan? Strategic planning is only going to work nationally if objectively assessed housing numbers are handed down by government to each strategic authority, says Simon Ricketts The 16 July 2026 London Plan consultation draft was published before the publication of the government’s 17 August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework which sets out the tests which strategic development strategies such as the London Plan should meet. In my view, it does not meet those tests. The current consultation process (mainly closing on 15 October 2026 but with a later closing date of 23 October in relation to corrections announcedon 11 September to ten boroughs’ proposed brownfield housing targets) does not have the benefit of any explanation of the Mayor’s position vis a vis compliance with the 2026 NPPF nor either any justification for non-compliance or any stated proposal to prepare a further updated draft. Why does the 2026 NPPF apply? See Annex 1: 5. Spatial development strategies should be produced in accordance with this Framework. 7. For all plans that should be produced in accordance with this Framework this means the policies in this version of the Framework will apply from 17 August 2026. 8. Any other plans should be produced in accordance with the version of this Framework published in December 2024, unless any of the transitional arrangements in Annex 1 to that Framework apply (in which case those transitional arrangements continue to apply). There’s no transitional arrangement for SDSs such as the London Plan which may have reached a particular stage short of publication of the final version. Because paragraph 8 says “any other plans” Annex 1 to the 2024 NPPF doesn’t apply. What does the 2026 NPPF require? Policy S1 states that SDSs should seek “to meet the development needs of their area, as a minimum” by “providing for objectively assessed needs for housing, business and other uses (including supporting infrastructure), as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas, unless: i. The application of the policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of
20
Planning in London
particular importance provides a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of development in the plan area; or ii. Any adverse impacts of doing so would substantially outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.” Policy HO1 states that the preparation of SDSs should be based on: a. A housing need assessment that establishes the overall number of homes needed in the area as a minimum over the plan period, using the standard method in Annex D; b. An assessment of the permanent and transit site accommodation needs of travellers in the area as a minimum over the plan period; and c. An understanding of any accommodation needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas. Under policy HO2, a housing requirement is then established for each local planning authority within the strategy area. Under policies PM10 and PM11 there needs to be co-operation between plan-making authorities to identify and address cross-boundary measures where, for instance, development needs that cannot be met wholly within a particular plan area could be met elsewhere and this must be demonstrated by statements of common ground. “Where it has not been possible to fully address cross-boundary matters, plan-making authorities should demonstrate that they have taken all reasonable steps to address them”. Under the soundness test for SDSs (policy PM14.2): “Positive – the strategy sets out a positive approach to delivering growth which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs, and is based on effective joint working on crossboundary strategic matters. A strategy which does not provide for objectively assessed needs should be considered an exception, and only where it is evidenced that stringent efforts have been taken to meet those needs through cooperation with other strategic planning authorities”. I have emboldened that last sentence, which indeed has footnote 20 against it: “This also applies to the Mayor of London.”
Simon Ricketts is a partner at boutique planning law firm Town Legal LLP Personal views, et cetera
What is potentially in conflict? There are wider, more fine-grain, issues as to whether the draft London Plan meets the first three requirements of PM6: a. Only address matters, and include policies, that are necessary and relevant to the plan being prepared, and that avoid unnecessary duplication of other parts of the development plan; b. Only include policies that extend beyond site or location-specific requirements where these are necessary and where plan-makers consider there is a clear and justified reason for inclusion; c. Not include policies which duplicate, substantively restate or are inconsistent with the content of national decision-making policies, unless directed by other policies in thisFramework But I wanted to focus for the moment just on the overall housing numbers for which the Mayor of London is planning for in the draft. This is proposed to be a 20 year plan. It is noted in the first chapter: “The government has set the housing need in London at 84,884 new homes per year.” (paragraph 1.9). The plan “sets out how we can deliver 558,000 homes over the ten-year period up to 2037” (paragraph 1.12). “This is based upon an assessment of what could be feasibly deliverable in the coming decade, taking into account viability and build-out rates, while analysing and optimising what more is possible through the lens of the Plan’s new and ambitious policy framework – representing a step change in the approach to planning for housing in London. This includes policies to boost housing delivery through: • optimising brownfield sites, building out Opportunity Areas and evolving town centres • closer integration between land use and transport – leveraging all opportunities from existing
OPINION: THE PRO-DEVELOPMENT PRESUMPTIONS IN THE NEW NPPF | SIMON RICKETTS
and planned transport, using new tools & approaches • making a step change in the approach to small sites (e.g. London-wide design code) and suburban densification (through the new Optimisation Framework) • targeting some industrial land release in accessible locations for housing • using the Green Belt to deliver major new settlements and ensure industrial provision, while increasing access to nature and deliver Biodiversity Net Gain. • deploying a range of tools such as Local and Mayoral Development Orders to increase certainty in planning system and drive density and delivery in sustainable locations • managing car parking to maximise land available for housing and other needs (and avoid unacceptable levels of congestion) • tackling viability constraints through consideration of alternative delivery formats, and other development expectations, including quality placemaking and more active public sector delivery role.” (paragraph 1.13) “The Mayor is very conscious that this does not meet the government’s housing need figure for London. More is possible beyond the initial ten-year period, and the Plan identifies opportunities and capacity to deliver homes up to and beyond the 850,000 – but this requires investment, measures and delivery rates that can only realistically and properly be put in place beyond the ten-year timeframe.” (paragraph 1.14). Surely, factually, this is a draft which does not meet London’s objectively assessed needs? This SDS is going to be an important precedent for all others coming forward across the country. Is it enough to plan to undershoot in the first ten years on the basis of what “could be feasibly deliverable” in the second decade of the plan: • without indeed any evidence that I have seen of “stringent efforts…taken to meet those needs through cooperation with other strategic planning authorities”; and • without stringent testing as to whether higher numbers might be achieved with reduced development management policy requirements or with
www.planninginlondon.com
other policy choices in relation to, for instance, density? And without interrogating for instance the justification for assuming an upturn in economic conditions such that the current London housing emergency measures package is no longer necessary past its expiration? Wider considerations To my mind, strategic planning is only going to work nationally if objectively assessed housing numbers are handed down by government to each strategic authority, for that authority to apportion to the LPAs within its area unless it has reached an accommodation with another strategic authority or can show that it at least has made “stringent efforts” to that end. Otherwise, we all know the
outcome: many strategic authorities will succeed with special pleading and under this new system we will still end up with a huge national undershoot. Before this new system goes much further, I think we do need more clarity as to what wriggle room strategic authorities (including the Mayor of London) have in preparing plans which do not meet their areas’ objectively assessed needs. Otherwise many draft SDS examinations will simply get bogged down in debates over housing numbers. Who knows, it may be that 558,000 homes is the right number for London up to 2027, but that is going to need a lot more by way of testing and consideration of other policy options, in my very humble opinion. n
The pro-development presumptions in the new NPPF To maximise the prospect of securing planning approval, scheme promoters need to ensure that their schemes press as many of the relevant buttons in the new NPPF as possible, says Simon Ricketts I have counted 21 of them, which I set out below. Most have detailed qualifying criteria to meet, but hopefully this will allow you to see the wood for the trees in applying the new policy framework. Not triggering the particular policy may in some cases count against you in the planning balance, so this is not quite just the Scrabble approach of always looking to maximise use of those triple word scores. S3: Presumption in favour of sustainable development 1. Decisions on development proposals should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This means: a. Policy S4 in this Framework should be applied when considering development proposals within settlements; b. Outside settlements, policy S5 should be applied; and
c. In all locations, development proposals that accord with both an up-to-date development plan and the decision-making policies in this Framework should be approved without delay. S4: Principle of development within settlements 1. Development proposals within settlements should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies in this Framework. S5: Principle of development outside settlements 1. Only certain forms of development should be approved outside settlements, as set out in the following list. These should be approved, unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies in this Framework. For developments outside settlements, falling within the a to j list is vital. If your land is green >>>
pil 139 October-December 2026
21
MAXIMISING THE PROSPECT OF SECURING PLANNING APPROVAL UNDER THE NEW NPPF | SIMON RICKETTS
...The pro-development presumptions in the new NPPF belt the development proposed must not be >>> “inappropriate development” and must therefore fall within one of the a to h criteria in policy GB7 1 – so grey belt development, for instance, also qualifies for this strong pro-development presumption. CC2: Mitigation of climate change 2. Substantial weight should be given to the benefits of improving the energy efficiency of existing buildings and/or drawing energy from district heat networks, renewable and low carbon sources (including through the installation of heat pumps and solar panels where these do not already benefit from permitted development rights) where this would be achieved through proposals for development. CC3: Adaptation to climate change 2. Substantial weight should be given to the benefits of improving the resilience of existing buildings and public spaces to anticipated climate change impacts where this would be achieved through proposals for development. HO7: Meeting the need for homes 1. In applying the policies in this Framework, substantial weight should be given to the benefits of providing homes which will contribute towards meeting the evidenced accommodation needs of the community, as identified through needs assessments prepared for the area of the local planning authority and other relevant evidence. This includes, but is not limited to, homes needed for different groups assessed under policy HO1. E2: Meeting the need for business land and premises 1. To support business growth, substantial weight should be given to: a. The economic benefits of proposals for commercial development which allow businesses to invest, expand and/or adapt; especially where this would support the economic vision and strategy for the area, the implementation of the Industrial Strategy, support improvements in freight and logistics and/or reflect proposals for Industrial Strategy Zones and AI Growth Zones; and b. Benefits for domestic food production, animal welfare and/or the environment which can be demonstrated through proposals for development for farm and agricultural modernisation. TC2: Development in town centres 1. In considering proposals for development in town centres, substantial weight should be given to the benefits of: a. Supporting the overall vitality and viability of the centre, including where this can be achieved
22
Planning in London
through the diversification of uses, intensification and provision of residential accommodation (provided this would not conflict with policies in the development plan for specific locations); and b. Improving or retaining access to local shops and other facilities which provide day-to day services for the local community. CO1: Proposals for telecommunications infrastructure 1. In considering proposals for the expansion or upgrading of electronic telecommunications networks, substantial weight should be given to the benefits of maintaining or improving network coverage, capacity, reliability and resilience, including where significant improvements are required such as along rail corridors. This includes, but is not limited to, providing for next generation wireless technologies (such as standalone 5G), gigabit capable broadband connections and supporting infrastructure such as fibre exchanges. W3: Renewable and low carbon energy development and electricity network infrastructure 1. In considering proposals for renewable and lowcarbon energy development and electricity network infrastructure, substantial weight should be given to: a. The benefits for improving energy security, supporting economic development and/or the transition to a net zero future; b. In the case of applications for the re-powering and life-extension of existing sites, the additional benefit of utilising an established site for this purpose; and c. The contribution that small-scale and community-led renewable and low carbon energy projects can make to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, along with their associated economic and social benefits. W4: Water infrastructure 1. In considering proposals for water supply, drainage and wastewater development, substantial weight should be given to the benefits of: a. Providing the capacity needed to serve proposed development and/or improving the security of supply and capacity for existing users (both residential and commercial, including agricultural users); and b. Improving water quality and reducing waterborne pollution. M3: Assessing the benefits of mineral development 1. In assessing proposals for minerals development, substantial weight should be given to the benefits of mineral extraction and processing, including to the economy. L2: Making effective use of land
1. Substantial weight should be given to the benefits where a development proposal would achieve one or more of the following: a. Remediating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated or unstable land; b. Making better use of vacant and underutilised land and buildings (such as: by bringing back into residential use empty homes and other suitable buildings; converting space above shops; redeveloping underutilised retail and business sites; and building on or above service yards, lock-ups, car parks and other transport infrastructure which are no longer required); c. Making effective use of previously developed land and buildings through temporary uses, in situations where alternative development is anticipated within a reasonable period (including as a result of the land being allocated for an alternative purpose in the development plan); or d. Creating additional homes or floorspace within settlements by using the airspace above existing residential and commercial premises, or through sensitive redevelopment or additional development within existing plots (including, but not limited to, the addition of mansard roofs, proposals to fill gaps in the existing roof line, the introduction of higher buildings at street corners and additional units within residential curtilages). GB8: The Golden Rules 2. In considering applications for major development involving the provision of housing on land released from the Green Belt through plan preparation or review, or on sites in the Green Belt subject to a planning application, substantial weight should be given to the importance of complying with the Golden Rules. DP3: Key principles for well-designed places 5. Substantial weight should also be given to outstanding or innovative designs which promote high levels of sustainability, or which help raise the standard of design more generally in an area, so long as they are consistent with the overall form and layout of their surroundings. HC4: Proposals for new and improved community facilities, public service infrastructure and development providing public health benefits 1. Substantial weight should be given to the benefits where: a. New or improved public service infrastructure or community facilities would be provided; and b. Development proposals would make a demonstrable contribution towards promoting good health, preventing ill-health, reducing health inequalities or supporting social interaction in the local community (such as, but not limited to, the provision of new recreation facilities, meeting places and opportunities to grow or purchase healthier food).
OPINION: IS SOCIALLY-RENTED HOUSING UNFAIRLY MALIGNED? | MERLIN FULCHER
Is socially-rented housing unfairly maligned? >>> P6: Land and operations for defence and public safety 1. Substantial weight should be attached to the importance of sites, activities, facilities and infrastructure required to maintain and enhance defence capability, or whose primary purpose is public safety (including uses such as coastal protection works, coastguard and lifeboat facilities and emergency services telecommunications infrastructure), when considering: a. Proposals for such development (whether through modernisation, intensification, redevelopment or expansion for operational and related purposes); and b. Proposals which could affect their operational activity and capability, including situations where other development should only proceed where it can make alternative or replacement provision for defence or public safety operations which would otherwise be affected, or where noise from operational activities could affect the proposed development (in which case policy P4 should also be applied). HE6: Proposals affecting designated heritage assets 2. Development proposals which would have a positive effect on a designated heritage asset should be supported. HE7: Decisions on non-designated heritage assets 1. Development proposals which would have a positive effect on a non-designated heritage asset should be supported. HE8: World Heritage Sites 2. Proposals that conserve those elements of a World Heritage Site or its setting, including any buffer zone, that make a positive contribution to it or which better reveal its significance, should be supported. HE9: Conservation areas 3. Proposals which conserve those elements of a conservation area that make a positive contribution to the area (or which better reveal its significance) should be supported.
Are we finally waking up from the dream of home ownership, asks Merlin Fulcher Socially-rented housing is a massive net contributor to the economy (contributing at least £77.7 billion a year to the national economy and savings in public services) and yet it is frequently, unfairly maligned as a drain on national resources. I would like the House of Lords Built Environment Committee to investigate why society, media and politics unfairly marginalises and overlooks social housing in favour of private rent and home ownership. An entirely rational approach to housing policy would prioritise high quality public housing as a key public benefit in the national interest – particularly important now. Yet politicians frequently downplay public housing as a solution of last resort assuming that only private housing is desirable to individuals and valuable in economic and national terms. This is despite the big impact high private rents and house prices have on income and productivity. It would be really fascinating if the committee could investigate this irrational imbalance in terms of policy and investment, and to establish a more logical and strategic approach to public housing delivery that enables a more balanced economy better suited to serving society’s and the country’s interests. With house price deflation in some areas, stalling large-scale development amid escalating costs, and
Merlin Fulcher is competitions editor and international news at The Architects' Journal
growing uncertainty around the deliverability of 1.5 million new homes as a joint public-private endeavour – perhaps now is a good moment for the committee to get ahead of these concerning trends and provide the intellectual and factual foundations for a new paradigm in housing? It could really make a huge difference and it would be a fascinating moment to reflect on the 50-year anniversary of the policy shift towards a home owning democracy. Are we as a society finally waking up from the dream of home ownership? And if so, what next?
https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/518/built-environment-committee/news/214433/which-issue-would-you-like-thehouse-of-lords-to-scrutinise
Simon Ricketts, 31 August 2026 Personal views, et cetera
www.planninginlondon.com
pil 139 October-December 2026
23
OPINION: URBAN AGGLOMERATION BENEFITS | MARK WILLINGALE
Urban agglomeration benefits Mark Willingale sees the benefits of modelling of urban agglomeration benefits for London and the uk Until quite recently agglomeration benefits were thought to provide only a small uplift to the benefit cost ratio on which the DfT WebTAG analysis judged whether to approve investment in a prospective transport proposal. Typical agglomeration elasticities, based on the Jane Jacobs effect of raised economic outputs from the clustering of an activity, indicated that a doubling of the activity cluster provided a 102-105% super linear increase in economic output. This percentage range arose from the productivity data for various activity clusters in cities around the globe. However, Geoffrey West and his team at the Santa Fe Institute have powerfully demonstrated, by trawling wider urban growth data from cities round the world, that the sub and super linear scaling effects on the infrastructure, populations and economic outputs of cities scale at the rate of 115% i.e. for the doubling in size or population the economy super-scales by 115% while the infrastructure is 15% more efficient or sub-scales at 85%. As a result, the DfT WebTAG analysis now
24
Planning in London
considers a range of agglomeration benefits, from 0% for small-scale local transport schemes to 15% for major city-wide and intercity proposals. Accordingly, there is much debate over the appropriate percentage of the agglomeration benefits depending on the urban scale of the proposal. Part of this uncertainty arises from the fractal boundary of Geoffrey West’s scaling law. Where does one draw the line around a conurbation like London? Is the relevant transport network the administrative area with a population of 9m, the area within the M25 of 10m, the Home Counties with 18.5m or England with 59.6m? While the inverse square law of diminishing population densities and propensity to travel from a central urban core will reduce the discrepancies, the chosen boundary for the system determines the population and consequently the size of a 115% agglomeration benefit, resulting in uncertainty. The London Overground and the Elizabeth Line are demonstrations of this uncertainty. In both cases demand has exceeded the DfT WebTAG pre-
Mark Willingale is director of Metrotidal Limited
dictions resulting in higher usage and revenues than anticipated. While that is fortunate for the revenues and viability of the lines it means that the models for the funding were unduly constrained and delayed. Both lines are a great success though the degree to which they have increased London’s wider economy is still being debated. A better model of urban agglomeration is required to predict both demand and the wider economic benefits. Both the Overground and the Elizabeth Line were designed in part to relieve congestion on a system that was already overloaded thereby accounting for part of the exceptional demand. For
the rest, much may be accounted for by the difference between the marginal 102-105% uplift of agglomeration elasticities applied to local activity clusters and Geoffrey West’s 115% scaling laws applied to the whole urban area. The difference in these growth rates arises from the effects of a huband-spoke area-filling fractal model for the urban transport network. At the smallest, local scale all the spokes from a hub to its neighbours are radial connections, so all transport benefits are radial benefits. Only as the network expands do the orbital benefits increasingly contribute to the overall 115% scaling of economic benefits. For a transport route with a series of stops it is easier to estimate and sum the separate demands from each stop along the line than consider them as the sum of radial and orbital demands from the wider urban network at each stop. Here, in addition to the network congestion, is a specific reason for the underestimated demand for the Overground and Elizabeth Line. As a result of the DfT WebTAG analysis often being directed at proposals to ease congestion on existing radial networks it was better at assessing radial rather than orbital transport agglomeration benefits. With the operational data from the London
www.planninginlondon.com
Overground and Elizabeth Lines now in hand there is an opportunity to review and recalibrate the DfT WebTAG analysis to take better account of the radial and orbital agglomeration benefits. With the better model the funding for transport improvements will then be better matched to the benefit cost ratio, without undue constraints or delays. An early test of the new model will be the West London Orbital extension to the London Overground that has been granted £6.65m in March 2026. More profound is the proposal to address the relatively poor connectivity of East London compared to West London by uniting the eastern limbs of the Elizabeth Line to form the Thames Estuary Orbital resulting in a system that serves a London metropolitan region extending west to Reading and east to the Southend conurbation. Just 12km of new twin track under the Thames between Southend Victoria and the Hundred of Hoo Railway can complete a 132km high-capacity rail orbital of the Thames estuary region from the bifurcation of the Elizabeth Line at Whitechapel (PIL Issue 117 April-June 2021 pp 49-53 and PIL issue 137 pp71-73). (SEE graphic). The populations beyond the M25 in South Essex
(800,000) and North Kent (500,000) that today largely operate as separate economic systems within the wider region of London are brought together to form a single system with a population of 1.3m, with corresponding agglomeration benefits. The capacity and resilience of the Elizabeth Line forming the Thames Estuary Orbital provides the radial and orbital connectivity to accommodate the corresponding economic growth and the areas north and south of the estuary beyond the M25 already served by 55 existing railway stations provide the space for accommodating over 100,000 new homes in support of that growth. An advantage of applying Geoffrey West’s scaling laws to assess the agglomeration benefits of a transport proposal is that they provide a relatively simple way to estimate the growth without requiring a model to analyse the individual hub-andspoke contributions of a complex transport network. The benefit for the UK is that the same appraisal of agglomeration benefits can be applied to improve the connectivity and economic outputs of urban estuaries around the UK, for the Tyne, Tees, Humber, Haven Ports, Southampton, Bristol, Belfast and Glasgow in addition to the Thames and Medway. n
pil 139 October-December 2026
25
OPINION: CIL AND VIABILITY | ANDREW GOLLAND
The New NPPF and viability The new NPPF contains a mixture of highly technical changes alongside more headline-friendly measures. The changes relating to viability fall somewhere between the two, says Andrew Golland Following consultation, the Government has published its revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The direction of travel The Government remains determined to minimise arguments about viability. Its preferred route — as with recent administrations — is a plan-led viability process, with viability evidence established principally at the local-plan stage. The August update, however, broadens the circumstances in which viability testing may subsequently be required. Under Policy DM5, these include where: • the development is materially different from the typologies considered in the local-plan viability assessment; • site characteristics are materially different from those assumed in the plan; • the development is demonstrably burdened by costs not accounted for at the plan stage; or • a recession or similar economic change has occurred. The intention is clearly to streamline delivery. But the more “opt-out” conditions there are, the greater the opportunity for challenge. At plan stage, viability testing is likely to rely on standardised designs and, in many cases, volume housebuilder products. Yet larger sites are delivered over housing-market cycles, so an economic downturn or other change in circumstances could readily provide grounds for revisiting the original assumptions. Smaller sites are inevitably harder to test at plan stage. Layout and design are often site-specific and land supply comes from a much wider range of sources: conversions, demolitions — and not just pubs — backland development, where diminution to a retained property may form the land-value benchmark, and small, uncomplicated sites where viability may be considerably easier to demonstrate than on a major scheme. Looked at more closely, therefore, the Government appears to be acknowledging something that its insistence on plan-led viability has tended to obscure: not everything can be resolved at plan-making stage. The state of housing delivery — and the continuing difficulty of meeting its housebuilding ambitions — appears to have reinforced that reality. Local plans, large sites and infrastructure Much of the viability problem disappears for author-
26
Planning in London
ities dealing predominantly with small sites and choosing not to require Section 106 contributions. Authorities relying on CIL, however, are finding that viability challenges can still arise. These are ultimately questions of policy — and of planning resources. At the plan-making stage, local authorities will nevertheless need to devote significant resources to ensuring that viability testing of strategic and larger sites is as accurate as possible. Inspectors, applying the NPPF requirement that development should follow plan assumptions, will expect robust viability evidence for strategic sites. Traditionally, this has been a weak point. Earlier studies often contain large-site assessments in which the viability assessor has little meaningful information about infrastructure requirements. That process needs tightening. Local planning authorities will need early engagement with those responsible for infrastructure assessments so that the viability evidence is properly informed. Infrastructure costs on major sites — including roads and education — can now reach £50,000 per dwelling. That can make a substantial difference to viability, while the timing and incidence of those costs within a ten-year cash-flow appraisal can be critical. If viability is genuinely to become a front-loaded process, the pressure on the public sector to get the numbers right is considerable. Viability, Green Belt and the “Golden Rules” The widening scope for viability challenge is particularly apparent in relation to the Green Belt and the Government’s “Golden Rules”. Policy GB8 broadly retains the position that development on Green Belt land, or land released from it, will typically be expected to deliver 50% affordable housing. But there are now three circumstances in which that figure can be challenged: • development on previously developed land burdened by costs not accounted for in the plan-stage viability assessment; • strategic sites, now typically defined as having capacity for at least 1,500 homes; and • development of a type different from that considered at plan stage. It is difficult to imagine many circumstances that would fall entirely outside this scope. Ultimately, the Government has to allow some
Dr Andrew Golland specialises in the field of housing, planning and regeneration room for challenge. A blanket 50% affordable-housing requirement on all Green Belt sites was always going to encounter viability problems.
Anorak territory Where should the data go? The draft NPPF proposed including standard viability inputs, including standardised benchmark land values, profit assumptions and requirements for growth testing, in an annex. I was never convinced of the benefit. Data is not policy. It belongs where its use is directed — in guidance. The NPPG on viability has several significant flaws, but at least it explains how data should be used and provides guiding assumptions and figures. Thankfully, the detailed data requirements remain within the NPPG rather than being embedded in the NPPF. Vacant Buildings Credit The position on vacant buildings has also been clarified following consultation, with the Government acknowledging that the previous removal of the policy was an error. Where vacant buildings are reused or redeveloped, affordable-housing requirements will apply only to the uplift in floor space. The provision does not apply to abandoned buildings or to major development on land released from the Green Belt. Conclusions Despite the Government’s insistence that plan evidence bases should lead delivery without recourse to viability negotiations, the new NPPF makes clear that this principle can be overridden in a range of circumstances. The result is pragmatic — arguably even over-flexible. There are, I think, three principal reasons. First, the market. House prices remain stubbornly flat while costs continue to rise. Delivering infrastructure on major strategic sites requires something closer to the long-term trend of house prices rising by around 5% a
BRIEFING: THE NEW LONDON PLAN | THE LONDON SOCIETY
The new London Plan: 10 changes that could shape London’s future The London Society was invited to attend the launch of the new Draft London Plan and its public consultation in July, where we heard directly from the Greater London Authority (GLA) about its ambitions for the capital, the challenges it is attempting to address and the choices London now faces. The Draft Plan sets out how London could grow and change towards 2050 and is intended eventually to replace the current London Plan, adopted in 2021. It could influence decisions about where London builds new homes, how existing neighbourhoods grow and the future of the Green Belt, town centres, industrial land and London’s skyline. The current 2021 Plan remains London’s statutory planning framework while the new Plan goes through consultation and examination, with the public consultation open until 5pm on 15 October 2026. Many of the choices contained in the Draft will already be familiar to London Society readers and members. Through our articles, podcasts, talks, >>> year alongside build-cost increases of around 3%. If that relationship can be restored, many schemes become viable and sustainable. Brexit, Covid and the war in Ukraine disrupted that benign trajectory. Two of those factors remain with us, and the Government knows it. Second, planning and land supply. Insufficient land is coming forward at prices that properly reflect the burden of Section 106 and other policy requirements. If Government is unwilling or unable to confront local political and community resistance, it will continue to encounter viability problems because policy requirements simply cannot be delivered on the ground. Third, climate change and the drive towards net zero. This is a one-way pressure. Building standards are becoming increasingly demanding and the Future Homes Standard is expected to add around £6,000 per new dwelling. These and other environmental requirements represent a significant challenge to viability. As they move further up the policy agenda, the need is for greater flexibility, not less. The Government may still want viability settled at the plan-making stage. The new NPPF suggests that, in practice, it recognises that it cannot always be. n
www.planninginlondon.com
debates and visits, we have been exploring where London should build new homes, what good housing and regeneration look like, how we balance retrofit with redevelopment, what happens when housing competes with industrial land, and how growth affects the infrastructure and everyday services on which London depends. The publication of the Draft London Plan brings many of those conversations together. Between now and the end of the consultation, we will draw on what we have already learned, invite experts to examine particular areas of the Plan and ask our members, subscribers and readers for their views, helping to inform The London Society’s response to the consultation. We begin with ten of the changes that we think could have the greatest impact on how London looks and feels.
The big shift The 2021 and 2026 Plans share many of the same ambitions, including more homes, affordable housing, sustainable transport, environmental improvement and better use of London’s land. The significant difference is how the new Draft proposes to accommodate the growth London needs. The 2021 Plan relied heavily on brownfield development, Opportunity Areas, town centres, transportaccessible locations and smaller-scale intensification, while maintaining strong Green Belt protection. The 2026 Draft retains a brownfield-first approach but concludes that this alone will not be enough. It plans for 558,000 homes between 2027 and 2036, against a government-assessed need figure of 850,000, and proposes to maximise brownfield development while opening up new sources of capacity, including some Green Belt and accessible industrial land. At the launch, the GLA said it still expects around 90% of housing delivery to come from brownfield land. It also presented the 558,000 figure not as the full extent of London’s housing need, but as a target it considers more realistically deliverable given current constraints including viability, infrastructure and public investment. The most important change may therefore be less about any individual policy and more about the
spatial bargain London is being asked to make. The Draft proposes intensifying the existing city as far as realistically possible, while no longer assuming that London’s existing urban footprint can accommodate all of its future needs.
Here are ten of the changes that could have the greatest impact on everyday London. 1. London could start building on parts of the Green Belt The Draft introduces a framework for plan-led development on Green Belt land where London’s needs cannot be accommodated within the existing urban area, representing a significant change from the strong Green Belt protection underpinning the 2021 Plan. The debate is more complicated than simply whether London should build on or protect the Green Belt. If new neighbourhoods are created, their success will depend on where they are located and how questions including transport, density, biodiversity, public access, schools and other infrastructure are addressed. The London Society has already been exploring these issues through our housing programme, including our discussion in Enfield about housing growth and the future of the Green Belt. The Draft Plan gives us an opportunity to develop that conversation further by considering what good new London neighbourhoods should look like and what Londoners should expect from them. 2. Suburban London could become noticeably denser Green Belt development may attract more attention, but changes within London’s existing neigh- >>>
pil 139 October-December 2026
27
BRIEFING: THE NEW LONDON PLAN | THE LONDON SOCIETY
>>> bourhoods could ultimately affect more people’s immediate surroundings. The Draft proposes stronger mechanisms for developing smaller sites, including a London-wide small-sites design code. This could mean more homes around stations and town centres, infill development and redevelopment of underused plots. Individually, these changes may be relatively modest, but collectively they could gradually transform parts of suburban London. This brings questions of housing numbers together with neighbourhood identity and quality. As London grows through thousands of smaller interventions, the design of new homes, public realm, local services and infrastructure will help determine whether that growth strengthens or diminishes the qualities people value about where they live. 3. The housing target becomes a debate about what London can actually deliver The Draft plans for 558,000 homes between 2027 and 2036 while acknowledging a government-assessed need figure of 850,000. Understanding the difference between housing need, theoretical capacity and actual delivery will be an important part of understanding the Plan. Identifying land for housing does not mean those homes will necessarily be built. Viability, infrastructure, affordable housing funding, construction capacity and wider economic conditions all affect delivery. Our housing events and articles have already been exploring the gap between housing ambition and reality, from Enfield to the City of London and through our wider What Good Looks Like programme. We will return to the housing numbers in more detail during this series, including the wider question of what is actually preventing London from building the homes it needs. 4. The affordable housing bargain is changing The Draft retains a strategic ambition for 50% affordable housing but proposes changes to the threshold approach, including geographically differentiated Fast Track thresholds for private land. The change reflects one of the central tensions in London’s housing debate. Lower thresholds could potentially help stalled developments move
28
Planning in London
forward and ultimately produce more affordable homes in absolute terms, while there is also a legitimate concern that they could reduce affordable housing contributions from developments that might have supported more. The impact will therefore need to be judged not simply by the overall number of homes delivered, but by how many are genuinely affordable and who is ultimately able to live in them.
5. Some industrial land could become housing The Draft identifies some accessible industrial land as having potential for housing, while recognising that London must still find space for industrial growth elsewhere. Industrial land accommodates much of the less visible activity that keeps London functioning, including deliveries, repairs, manufacturing, construction, food distribution, storage and waste services, alongside a growing range of advanced industries. The London Society has recently been exploring this through our work on London’s industrial economy and places such as Park Royal. The Draft gives that conversation new significance because releasing accessible industrial land for housing could change where these businesses operate, how far they travel and the relationship between the homes London needs and the services required to support them. 6. Town centres could become much more residential The Draft gives London’s town centres and high streets a stronger role in accommodating housing growth and adapting to economic change. It also revises the strategic approach to different parts of central London. This could mean significantly more people living in places traditionally dominated by shops, offices or other commercial activity, bringing the housing debate together with wider questions about the changing role of London’s centres. The balance between homes, work, retail, culture, tourism and nightlife will influence whether these places remain lively and useful throughout the day and week. This is particularly relevant as London continues to adapt to post-pandemic changes in working patterns, shopping and the use of central London.
7. London gets clearer rules about tall buildings The Draft proposes a London-wide definition of tall buildings at 30 metres and above, with buildings of 100 metres or more treated as “metropolitan scale” and directed towards identified clusters. This could create greater strategic consistency in how London manages its skyline, while boroughs would continue to identify appropriate locations for tall buildings. The consequences extend beyond the distant view of London’s skyline. Taller and denser development can affect heritage, infrastructure, public space and the experience of the city at street level, making the quality of what happens around and between buildings as important as their height. 8. Retrofit versus redevelopment becomes a more explicit choice The Draft strengthens London’s approach to whole-life carbon and requires greater consideration of whether existing structures can be retained. However, it does not introduce a blanket “retrofit first” rule and recognises that retaining a building should not necessarily prevent a site from being used more intensively where that is appropriate. The London Society has been exploring this tension through recent articles, podcasts and visits to retrofit and reuse projects across London. The Draft brings it more explicitly into the strategic planning debate by requiring decisions to balance the carbon benefits of retaining existing structures with the pressure to provide more homes and economic activity. This is an area where simple answers are unlikely to work for every building or site, and one we will explore further during the consultation. 9. Green space becomes part of the intensification equation The Draft introduces a stronger policy focus on accessible green space and areas where provision is currently lacking, linking questions about development more directly with the quality of the places in which people live. As London becomes denser, access to good green space is likely to become increasingly important. The issue is not simply the amount of green
shown on a planning map, but whether people can easily reach and use good-quality parks and natural spaces as part of everyday life. The success of intensification will therefore depend partly on what happens between the buildings, including the quality and accessibility of the public and green spaces that support daily life.
10. London’s invisible infrastructure is becoming planning policy For the first time, the Draft includes a dedicated strategic policy for data centres, reflecting the growing physical demands of AI, cloud computing and the digital economy. Although these technologies can feel intangible, they require buildings, land, electricity and supporting infrastructure. Their growth therefore creates another demand on the finite resources and space available within London. We have already begun exploring this through our work on data centres and London’s less visible infrastructure. The Draft Plan brings these issues into a wider conversation about how London accommodates the systems needed to support a changing economy alongside homes, businesses and other essential infrastructure.
www.planninginlondon.com
What kind of London could this create? Taken together, these changes point towards a London that could become denser within its existing neighbourhoods, more willing to consider growth at its edges, more flexible about where homes and industry go, and more deliberate about questions ranging from tall buildings to embodied carbon and digital infrastructure. These choices are closely connected. Building more homes has implications for transport and public services, while releasing industrial land affects logistics and employment. Greater density increases the importance of parks and public space, affordable housing policy influences who benefits from growth, and decisions about demolition and reuse affect both carbon emissions and development capacity. The significance of the new London Plan therefore extends well beyond the planning profession. Its policies could influence what is built, what is retained and how Londoners experience their neighbourhoods for decades to come. Further reading If you would like to explore the new London Plan in more detail, you can read the full Draft London Plan and submit your own response. The consultation closes at 5pm on 15 October 2026.
Help shape The London Society’s response This is the first in a series of London Society articles exploring the Draft London Plan before the consultation closes on 15 October 2026. Over the coming months, we will revisit many of the issues we have already been examining across our wider programme, invite experts and practitioners to contribute different perspectives, and connect the policies in the Draft Plan with real places and projects across London. We also want to hear from you. Throughout the series, we will invite our members, subscribers and readers to share their views on some of the choices facing London, helping us understand what matters to Londoners and informing The London Society’s response to the consultation. You do not need to be a planner or planning expert to contribute. If these proposals could affect your neighbourhood, your housing, your local high street, the green spaces you use or the way you experience London, your perspective has a place in this debate. Follow the series, join the conversation and tell us what you think. Together, we can make sure that Londoners’ experiences of their city are part of the discussion about what it becomes next. n Lead author Jay Allen, with kind permission
pil 139 October-December 2026
29
BRIEFING
Housing planning approvals fall to lowest level in more than a decade Planning approvals for new homes in England have fallen to their lowest level in more than a decade, according to the Home Builders Federation (HBF), raising fresh concerns about the government’s housing ambitions. Just 45,315 homes were approved in the second quarter of 2026, the lowest quarterly total since 2012. The 214,515 homes approved in the year to June were 8% fewer than in the previous 12 months and 36% below the 2017 peak. The annual total represents just 58% of the 370,000 annual permissions identified in the National Planning Policy Framework as necessary to support the government’s target of delivering 300,000 net additional homes a year. The decline is particularly marked for larger developments. Approvals for sites of more than 10 homes fell 21% quarter-on-quarter to 39,689, 14% below the same period last year. Approvals for private homes dropped 19% against the previous quarter and 15% year-on-year. Meanwhile, just 1,234 schemes of three or more homes were approved in the quarter, a record low. Based on Glenigan data, the HBF attributes the decline to weak demand, restricted access to affordable mortgages, rising construction costs, higher taxes and mounting policy requirements that undermine development viability. The federation is calling for a moratorium on further costs, taxes and levies on housebuilding, including the Building Safety Levy, due to come into effect next month.
Comments on the property and planning announcements made at the Conservative Party Conference “There will be a lot in these proposals that resonates with the development industry. The cost and complexity of bringing forward housing has increased significantly, and there is no doubt that issues such as lengthy Section 106 negotiations and increasingly complex environmental requirements add both cost and delay.Lawrence Turner, Director, Boyer “The key question, however, is whether the proposals would actually make development quicker and more viable in practice. Abolishing Natural England and the Environment Agency would be a significant change, but many of the requirements developers have to address arise from the underlying legislation. If those requirements remain, transferring responsibility to Defra will not necessarily
30
Planning in London
The British Library extension by rshp architects to the building by Sir Colin StJohn Wilson has started on site
remove the delays our clients currently experience. “Similarly, there is certainly scope to simplify Section 106 and CIL. We regularly see schemes secure a resolution to grant planning permission but then spend many months negotiating the s106 agreement before a permission is actually issued. A simpler and more predictable system could therefore make a real difference, although it would still need sufficient flexibility to deal with affordable housing, infrastructure requirements and scheme viability. “The suggested £50,000 saving is obviously an eye-catching figure, although a reduction in the cost of building a home wouldn’t necessarily translate directly into the same reduction in its sale price. The potentially more significant benefit is that lower development costs could improve viability of sites and help more consented schemes move into delivery. “Ultimately, that’s probably the most important test of any reform. It’s whether it gives developers greater certainty, reduces unnecessary delay and results in more homes actually being built.” – Lawrence Turner, Director, Boyer
British Library extension gets under way A Japanese Shinto ceremony marked the start of work on a 700,000 sq ft extension to the British Library in London on 21 September. Mitsui Fudosan, one of Japan’s largest listed property companies, hosted the ceremony, where a priest performed traditional rituals seeking good fortune and safe construction. Around 100 guests attended, including local community representatives, Camden Council and businesses from the King’s Cross Knowledge Quarter.
Due for completion in 2032, the £1.1 billion project will provide new public spaces for the Library alongside facilities for commercial science, innovation and knowledge-based industries. The development is being delivered by SMBL, wholly owned by Mitsui Fudosan UK, in partnership with the British Library. Stanhope is development manager and Mace Construct the construction manager.
Architects appointed for Royal Docks floating neighbourhood Haptic Architects and Gort Scott are to lead a nine-month feasibility study into floating homes, houseboat moorings and other waterside facilities at Royal Victoria Dock West, as part of the £10 billion Royal Docks regeneration programme. Commissioned by Royal Docks Waterways, which operates on behalf of the Greater London Authority, the team will develop design concepts, prepare a business case and undertake public consultation, with engagement due to begin in October. Stace and Oakridge will lead the business case. Unveiled in February, the 12ha vision for the dock comprises three elements: floating homes, a wellness facility and a floating park. DC-CM advised on the initial vision. The idea has a long history. In 2014, dRMM won a competition for 50 floating homes on the opposite side of the dock, but despite an agreement in principle in 2016, the scheme was eventually abandoned before reaching planning. Haptic director Scott Grady said the challenge was to bring new life to the water while respecting the dock’s heritage and community. Royal Docks Waterways managing director Scott Derben said the study would establish whether a first phase of
floating homes could proceed and help guide wider improvements to the area. The proposed wellness facility could include a floating lido, saunas, spa facilities and expanded open-water swimming. Royal Docks Waterways expected to identify a developer-operator for this element by the end of September. Early phases of the wider scheme could be delivered within three to five years, with biodiversity, climate resilience and water quality among its stated priorities. – Architects’ Journal
Devolution drive could shift 90,000 jobs out of London As many as 90,000 white-collar jobs could move from London to regional cities over the next five years, boosting economies in Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham by an estimated £9 billion, according to recruitment firm Robert Walters. The forecast reflects rising London office rents, a shortage of prime workspace and the spread of hybrid working, alongside government efforts to decentralise economic activity. The wider economic impact, including additional spending and supplychain activity, could reach £15 billion. Although the projected relocations represent just 2.5% of London’s workforce, the shift could accelerate regional employment growth. Robert Walters expects 12,000 jobs to leave the capital by the end of 2027, rising to 45,000 by 2029. The North West is forecast to gain the most, with 22,500 jobs potentially relocating to the region, including Manchester and Liverpool, by 2031. The resulting economic boost could reach £2.25 billion. Senior management teams are expected largely to remain in London, with companies building up junior and mid-level teams using local talent. Jonny Bohane, of Robert Walters’ market intelligence team, said the projections pointed to “a rebalancing of the scales” towards stronger regional jobs growth. UK managing director Daniel Harris expects the trend to accelerate as businesses respond to costs and use hybrid working to build more geographically dispersed teams. – The Times
Vape shops and gaming centres face tighter planning rules The government is proposing changes to planning rules to give councils and communities greater control over high-street businesses, including vape shops, adult gaming centres and betting shops. Under the proposals, new vape shops would require planning permission, ending their ability to open under Use Class E without a further application where the existing use permits it. Adult gaming centres would be reclassified as sui
www.planninginlondon.com
generis — in a class of their own — meaning new premises and changes of use from Use Class E would also require planning permission. The government also plans to remove the Gambling Act 2005’s “Aim to Permit” requirement, which directs licensing authorities generally to permit gambling premises where statutory requirements are met. Its removal would give councils greater discretion over whether new betting shops are appropriate for their area. – The Planning Portal
New exemptions to Biodiversity Net Gain come into force A new exemption from mandatory Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) requirements for developments of 0.2 hectares or below has come into force in England, following changes to the BNG rules announced by the government in July. The changes took effect on 6 August 2026 and apply to new planning applications submitted from that date. The exemption applies where the area within the red-line boundary is 0.2 hectares or below, provided the development does not negatively affect any priority habitat. A separate exemption has also been introduced for temporary developments permitted for five years or less, subject to the same condition. The changes also remove the previous exemption for self-build and custom-build homes. Many of these developments are expected to fall within the new threshold and therefore, remain exempt where the relevant conditions are met. For minor developments that remain subject to BNG, off-site biodiversity gains will now have the same priority as creating or enhancing habitat onsite. The change provides greater flexibility for smaller developments where delivering biodiversity improvements within the site can be difficult, including some urban and brownfield developments. The reforms will also extend BNG to Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) for the first time. The government expects this requirement to come into effect from November 2026, with a 10% BNG requirement applying across all NSIP types. A further change affecting local planning authorities will take effect from 31 October 2026, when biodiversity gain plan submissions will need to be determined by an officer rather than by a planning committee. LPAs will therefore need to ensure their schemes of delegation reflect the new requirement before it comes into force. Further changes to the BNG regime are also expected, including proposed exemptions for developments focused on biodiversity and improvements to parks, playing fields and public gardens. – The Planning Portal
“Quite a result for the Square Mile’s built environment community” we say in our first leader – and see the leader in our last issue which is vindicated by the Minister’s letter
New planning rules give homeowners more flexibility to install solar panels The government is changing permitted development rights to make it easier for homeowners in England to install solar panels without applying for planning permission. New changes have been made through an amendment to the General Permitted Development Order and came into effect on 27 August 2026. Under the new rules, the maximum projection for solar equipment installed on a wall, balcony or roof enclosure will increase from 0.2 metres to 0.4 metres. The existing 0.2-metre limit will remain for installations next to highways and on pitched roofs. For standalone solar equipment, the current limit of one installation within the curtilage of an individual house will also be removed, allowing homeowners to install more than one where the other permitted development conditions are met. The existing five-metre restriction from the property boundary will also be removed, although some installations in protected areas will still require prior approval. The changes will also introduce permitted development rights for plug-in solar panels. Restrictions will apply to installations on wooden fences, gates, walls and other means of enclosure to reduce the risk of fire spreading. Some additional planning controls will remain in place for properties in protected areas. For example, certain standalone solar equipment installed within five metres of a property boundary in designated areas may require prior approval from the local planning authority. n
pil 139 October-December 2026
31
BRIEFING
Truman Brewery masterplan approved with data centre Plans for offices, homes and a data centre at the Truman Brewery near Brick Lane, east London, have been approved by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. The eight-building masterplan, designed by Buckley Gray Yeoman with Carmody Groarke, Morris+Company and Henley Halebrown, spans three sites. It includes a 5,200 sq m data centre designed by Morris+Company and 35,000 sq m of office, retail and community space. The Grade II-listed Boiler House will be redeveloped with a two-storey extension and new public space. The scheme also includes 44 homes, six of them social housing designed for larger families of Bangladeshi heritage. Originally submitted in 2024, the controversial proposals faced strong opposition from Tower Hamlets Council and campaign group Save Brick Lane, amid concerns about the displacement of local residents and businesses. Housing Secretary Angela Rayner and minister Matthew Pennycook backed the scheme, citing its potential to increase footfall, create jobs and deliver significant public and economic benefits. – Dezeen
Orms reveals plans to turn BT Tower into hotel Architect Orms has unveiled detailed proposals to convert London’s Grade II-listed BT Tower into a hotel and visitor attraction for US owner MCR. The second public consultation, launched last week, sets out plans for hotel rooms across levels seven to 23 of the 177m tower, which was London’s tallest building when completed in 1964. A revolving observation deck would offer 360degree views of the capital. The scheme also includes an infinity pool on the roof of the 1960s podium, open to the public with discounted rates for local residents. At the tower’s base, the 1939 Howland Building, originally the Museum Telephone Exchange, would be restored and extended upwards by four storeys to provide additional hotel accommodation. Retail space would occupy the ground floors of both buildings, while the currently inaccessible square would become a public plaza with new pedestrian routes. MCR bought the tower from BT Group for £270 million in 2024. The project team includes heritage consultant Donald Insall Associates, development manager Edit, planning consultant Newmark and project manager Gardiner & Theobald. A planning application is expected to be submitted to Camden Council this autumn. n
32
Planning in London
!" # $%
‘This beautifully illustrated survey brings fresh perspectives and insights to some of the world’s most celebrated and debated houses, with a special focus on the Modern Movement and what has come after. Few people will get the chance to visit all of these dwellings, but Owen Hopkin’s lively and engaging survey is the next best thing.’ Simon Bradley
& ' ()*+** ' ,* - )* !.#
COMING APRIL 2026
> ?? <<= == /
0
< = = /
12
5
3 4 12 5
6 ! % & # + ! # $ $ & " 7 ! & + # # & " " # + $ & & +7
" 9 $ " # ": & ! ; $ $ "7 "+
8
Find out more at yalebooks.co.uk
/
BRIEFING: CLIPBOARD
CLIPBOARD
James Cleverly quits shadow cabinet to run for London mayor. He says: Sadiq Khan has let down London, our capital needs a champion. “London’s reputation has been allowed to slip, and its problems left to fester. It needs the new energy that a native Londoner and Conservative can bring”. I love London. I was born and brought up here. I went to school and university here, joined the army here, got my first job here, started a company here and entered politics here. I served on the Metropolitan Police Authority and developed plans to cut youth reoffending and keep young Londoners out of trouble. I chaired the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority and the London Waste and Recycling Board (a job that, despite the name, was not rubbish). London is an amazing city, the UK’s commercial, cultural, political and diplomatic hub. I’ve represented the UK around the world and seen countless cities. London is a step above any of them. But London has been let down by Labour. I am putting myself forward to be the Conservative candidate for mayor of London, because our capital needs more than an administrator. It needs a champion, it needs someone who believes in London, understands its potential and is prepared to fight for its future. I intend to make London a city to be proud of again. As foreign secretary I promoted London around the world. I saw the esteem in which it is still held, but also the intense competition it faces. London cannot take its global standing for granted. We must rebuild its reputation and make it, once again, the best place in the world to live, work, invest and build a business. Sadiq Khan saw city hall as his springboard into No 10. But when Keir Starmer became Labour leader, that ambition disappeared and so did Khan’s drive. London’s reputation has been allowed to slip, at home and abroad, while too many of its problems have been left to fester.
34
Planning in London
Now Andy Burnham treats London as a cash cow: somewhere to tax, regulate, raid and blame. His government has taken hundreds of millions of pounds from London council budgets. Other parties simply amplify every criticism of the capital, talking it down without offering either a credible plan or showing any real desire to make things better. Of course London has problems that need fixing. But it also has huge opportunities, extraordinary reserves of talent and almost limitless potential. Our capital should never be embarrassed by its success. Its success drives the British economy, and the route both to Britain’s economic recovery and to the next Conservative government runs through London. That means creating a London that is both aspirational and affordable. Londoners need homes they can afford to buy or rent. Entrepreneurs need to be able to start and grow businesses without being strangled by cost and regulation. We cannot tax and subsidise our way to prosperity. We must reduce the cost of building homes and running businesses and remove the barriers holding people back. London needs a mayor who will take the lead out of the saddle, the rocks out of the rucksack and the drag anchor off our economy and let Londoners succeed. The Conservative Party, and London, needs a credible candidate with the experience and confidence to win. I know this city. I know the job. I know I can do it. And I know I can beat whoever Labour puts forward. n. – The Times
Foster calls for nuclear revolution as renewables threaten ecosystems Norman Foster has warned that the drive to replace fossil fuels with wind and solar power risks damaging the ecosystems it aims to protect, calling instead for an “electrical revolution” based on industrialised nuclear energy. Speaking at the World Nuclear Symposium in London, the 91-year-old architect argued that decades of climate targets had failed to dislodge fossil fuels and that the world needed a new approach to producing abundant clean energy. “The very aim of saving the planet and its fragile ecosystems is in many ways threatened by the very device that we have to save them,” he said, referring to the expansion of wind turbines and solar farms.
He described the “rampant destruction” of countryside by renewable-energy projects, some covering areas larger than London. Foster, founder and executive chairman of Foster + Partners, said he had become increasingly interested in small modular reactors and so-called nuclear batteries. A container-sized reactor, he suggested, could power a small town or several city blocks while occupying a fraction of the land required by wind or solar installations. His vision is to manufacture these units on an industrial scale, “like jet engines”, enabling local deployment and potentially reducing dependence on conventional electricity grids. The Norman Foster Foundation is developing the concept with MIT’s Center for Advanced Nuclear Energy Systems, exploring a new generation of plug-and-play nuclear microreactors. Foster emphasised that renewables still had a role. Solar power could be integrated seamlessly into buildings, facades and roofs, while wind farms should be located where their environmental impact is appropriate. “What we need is an abundance of clean energy,” he said. “This is truly a revolution and it will need all the elements” – solar, wind and “industrialised nuclear to augment the existing systems”. The argument echoes a 2024 Domus editorial in which Foster questioned the environmental consequences of expanding wind and solar power. He also highlighted the minerals required for batteries and other technologies, including lithium, copper, graphite, cobalt and nickel. Meanwhile, demand for electricity is rising through electrified transport, desalination, artificial intelligence and data centres, even as hundreds of millions of people lack reliable access to power. Foster believes the answer lies beyond the conventional construction of large power stations, with factories mass-producing standardised nuclear units. He also identified public attitudes as an obstacle, pointing to Germany’s nuclear closures despite its continuing reliance on imported electricity, including nuclear-generated power. “I could go on about the virtues of nuclear,” he said. “You know them, I know them, but most people outside this hall are not aware of them.” For Foster, the challenge is to reconcile climate action with protecting nature through a combination of renewables and a new generation of smallscale nuclear power. n
¡PILLO!
¡ PILLO!
Khan pledges to put women and girls at heart of London planning Sadiq Khan has unveiled a three-year strategy to make London’s public spaces safer for women and girls, including £15.6 million to redesign spaces through better lighting and CCTV, removing blind spots and eliminating hiding places. The strategy will also target active travel routes, transport hubs and bus stops, promoting safer, more welcoming environments through design. The mayor’s office said the approach would be extended to developers, landowners and other stakeholders through local plans, masterplans and neighbourhood strategies, alongside efforts to provide safe housing and tackle homelessness. The initiative brings together the Greater London Authority, the mayor’s design advocates, Transport for London, Mayoral Development Corporations, police, local authorities and health services to influence the design of places, systems and infrastructure. In July 2024, the London Legacy Development Corporation became the UK’s first local authority to issue guidance on making spaces more equitable for women and girls, calling for genderinclusive processes across projects and decisions. Research cited by the mayor’s office found that 86 per cent of women aged 18 to 24 had experienced harassment in public spaces. Separate polling suggested Londoners felt less safe in many public spaces than at home or work. – The AJ
Slow Horses glamorise the Barbican Season six of the spy drama Slow Horses, the spy drama adapted from Mick Herron’s espionage novels, returned to Apple TV last month. Starring Gary Oldman, the series centres around Slough House, the depressing fictional HQ of MI5’s exiled agents, situated on Aldersgate Street opposite the Barbican estate. The grade II listed brutalist concrete complex is the recurring backdrop, with its stark walkways and bridges serving as rendezvous points for Herron’s characters. Ben Dowell’s review in the Times enthused: “The sixth series is coming soon to Apple TV and it might just be the best yet, even if the mood is decidedly gloomy in Slough House.” The Barbican Centre will close in 2027 for the first phase of a multimillion-pound renovation project, due to be completed before its 50th anniversary in 2032. ABOVE: General view of the Arts Centre 1982
The most powerful, coherent and quietly revolutionary national planning policy we've ever had, says Zack A new planning framework, published by the government on August 17th and effective immediately, takes aim at the Knockholts: stations on busy commuter routes found across England that are surrounded by fields or only half-developed land. They may be a fine place to walk the labrador before catching the 7.58 to the City; they are
What would a Reform government do to the English planning system? Their final "planning policy" is coming in 2027, but according to the hit list in the "teal" paper produced for this year's party conference, we could be in for: - Removing *all* CIL and s.106 contributions for brownfield sites (other than 5% affordable in our 5 biggest cities). - Ditching national housing targets altogether. Leaving it to individual authorities to decide how much greenfield housing land they need. - Ditching spatial development strategies, including the London Plan. - Capping time periods covered by local plans to 5 years. - Putting national planning policy on a statutory footing.
www.planninginlondon.com
also a symptom of a restrictive planning regime known around the world as a form of pigheaded economic self-harm. Taken with other recent changes, it "adds up to the most powerful, coherent and quietly revolutionary national planning policy we've ever had," says Zack Simons KC, a leading planning barrister.
Residential development is unviable in nearly half of England Government must either reduce build costs by removing regulation or subsidise development from the public purse, argues Paul Smith in Housing Today. There is no point in a local plan that isn’t deliverable. The viability of residential development, long taken for granted, is becoming increasingly challenged – and that puts the deliverability of plans at risk. Construction costs are some 38% higher than in January 2019 – an increase that has not been off-set by commensurate increases in house prices. Zoopla reports that residential development is now unviable in 48% of England. The picture in some regions is even worse – Zoopla’s data shows that just 13% of the Midlands has selling prices at a level where it makes financial sense to build new homes. n
pil 139 October-December 2026
35
BRIEFING | PLANNING PERFORMANCE
The number of applications received and decided continue on down from the same quarter last year Latest planning performance by English districts and London boroughs: planning applications in England during April to June 2026 OVERVIEW
Between April to June 2026, district level planning authorities in England: • received 78,700 applications for planning permission, down 2% from the same quarter a year earlier; • decided 74,500 applications for planning permission, down 8% from the same quarter a year earlier; • granted 65,200 decisions, down 8% from the same quarter a year earlier; this is equivalent to 88% of decisions, unchanged from the same quarter a year earlier; • decided 91% of major applications within 13 weeks or the agreed time, unchanged from the same quarter a year earlier; and decided 19% of major applications within the statutory period of 13 weeks, down 4 percentage points from the same quarter a year earlier; • granted 6,900 residential applications, down 2% from the same quarter a year earlier; • granted 1,400 applications for commercial developments, down 6% from the same quarter a year earlier; and • decided 37,700 householder development applications, down 14% from the same quarter a year earlier. This accounted for 51% of all decisions, down from 54% a year earlier. • In the year ending June 2026, district level planning authorities: • granted 254,100 decisions, down 5% from the year ending June 2025; and • granted 28,000 residential applications, down 3% from the year ending June 2025. To view this data in more detail please see our interactive dashboard
Planning applications received During April to June 2026, authorities undertaking district level planning in England received 78,700 applications for planning permission, down 2% from the same quarter a year earlier. In the year ending June 2026, authorities received 314,200 planning applications, down 5% from the year ending June 2025 (Live Table P134, PS1 Dashboard). The applications in these figures include applications for outline planning permission, applications for approval of reserved matters, applications for full planning permission and applications to vary or remove a planning condition. The figures collected by the Department are the total numbers of planning applications submitted to local planning authorities, and don’t include a breakdown of the type of application or, in the case of residential applications, 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 applications from a contractor, Glenigan. Residential units - outline applications The latest provisional figures show that 2,930 outline residential applications were made in the year to June 2026, down 6% from the 3,140 outline residential applications made in the year to June 2025. Within these applications, 246,000 units were applied for in the year to June 2026, up 41% from the 175,000 units applied for in the year to June 2025. Residential units - detailed applications The latest provisional figures show that 22,730 detailed residential applications were made in the year to June 2026, unchanged from the 22,750 detailed residential applications made in the year to June 2025. Within these applications, 274,000 units were applied for in the year to June 2026, down 8% from the 299,000 units applied for in the year to June 2025. Planning decisions Authorities reported 74,500 decisions on planning
36
Planning in London
applications in April to June 2026, down 8% from the same quarter a year earlier. In the year ending June 2026, authorities decided 291,900 planning applications, down 5% from the year ending June 2025 (Live Tables P120/P133/P134, PS1/PS2 Dashboard). Applications granted During April to June 2026, authorities granted 65,200 decisions, down 8% from the same quarter a year earlier. This represented 88% of all decisions, unchanged from the same quarter a year earlier. In the year ending June 2026, authorities granted 254,100 decisions, down 5% from the year ending June 2025. Authorities granted 87% of all decisions, unchanged from the year ending June 2025 (Live Tables P120/P133, PS2 Dashboard). Applications on hand Authorities reported that they had 113,800 applications on hand as at 1 April 2026, down 2% from the same quarter a year earlier. This is 53% above the number of decisions made during the quarter. The corresponding figure for the same quarter a year earlier was 44%. Taking account of numbers of applications received, decisions made and applications withdrawn during the quarter gives a total of 114,000 applications on hand as at the end of June 2026, up 3% from the same quarter a year earlier (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 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, but since the peak there has been a steep downward trend.
Planning decisions by development type, speed of decision and local planning authority. All tables and figures can be found here:
https://tinyurl.com/z4nfmvuk Source: DLUHC/ONS 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 84% in London to 92% in North East (Live Table P133, PS1/PS2 Dashboard). Speed of decisions In April to June 2026, 91% of major applications were decided within 13 weeks or within the agreed time, unchanged from the same quarter a year earlier. 19% of major applications were decided within the statutory time period of 13 weeks, down 4 percentage points from the same quarter a year earlier. In the same quarter, 87% of minor applications were decided within 8 weeks or within the agreed time, down 1 percentage point from the same quarter a year earlier. 39% of minor applications were decided within the statutory time period of 8 weeks, down 3 percentage points from the same quarter a year earlier. Also in the same quarter, 90% of other applications were decided within 8 weeks or within the agreed time, down 2 percentage points from the same quarter a year earlier. 58% of other applications were decided within the statutory time period of 8 weeks, down 4 percentage points from the same quarter a year earlier. Use of performance agreements ‘Performance agreement’ (PA) is an umbrella term used here to refer to Planning Performance Agreements, Extensions of Time and Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs). The EIA process is undertaken to assess whether a project will have a substantial impact on the environment, with applications having an accompanying Environmental Statement[footnote 4] (see Technical Notes for further definitions of PAs). Between April to June 2026, 41% 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 77% of major decisions involving a performance agreement,
www.planninginlondon.com
compared with 53% of minor decisions and 35% 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 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 (minor, change of use and householder developments). Where an authority is formally designated by the Secretary of State as underperforming, applicants have had the option of submitting their applications for the category or categories for which the authority has been designated (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. Further details of designated authorities, including of applications submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, are available at Planning Applications (s62A). 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. 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. Once the figures for the relevant period have >>>
pil 139 October-December 2026
37
BRIEFING | PLANNING PERFORMANCE
>>> been published in Live Table P152 or P154, which identify local planning authorities are at risk of designation by exceeding the threshold, they are invited to contact Departmental officials with any data corrections, and information on any exceptional circumstances applying to the authority that might be used as reasons why the Secretary of State should not designate them. The Secretary of State then takes this evidence into account when making decisions on which authorities should be designated. Ten local planning authorities are currently designated by the Secretary of State in relation to the quality of decision-making for major applications. These are: Cherwell District Council Dacorum Borough Council Epping Forest District Council Hertsmere Borough Council Lewes District Council Malvern Hills District Council Rossendale Borough Council South Tyneside Council Staffordshire Moorlands District Council Wychavon District Council Lewes District Council was designated on 8th May 2024, while the rest were designated on 15 June 2026. Residential decisions In April to June 2026, 9,100 decisions were made on applications for residential developments[footnote 5], of which 6,900 (76%) were granted. The number of residential decisions made was down 2% from the same quarter a year earlier, with the number granted also down 2% from the same quarter a year earlier. 900 major residential decisions were granted, down 3% from the same quarter a year earlier and 6,000 minor residential decisions were granted, down 2% from the same quarter a year earlier (Live Table P120A, PS2 Dashboard). In the year ending June 2026, 37,100 decisions were made on applications for residential developments, of which 28,000 (76%) were granted. The number of residential decisions made was down 3% from the previous year, with the number granted also down 3%. 3,600 major residential decisions were granted, down 3% from the previous year and 24,400 minor residential decisions were granted, down 2% 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
38
Planning in London
housing permissions from a contractor, Glenigan[footnote 6]. The latest provisional figures show that 15,000 detailed residential permissions were granted in the year to June 2026, down 2% from the 15,330 detailed residential permissions granted in the year to June 2025. Within these permissions, 212,000 homes were granted permission in the year to June 2026, down 12% from the 242,000 homes granted permission in the year to June 2025. 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. These figures are provided here to give contextual information to users and have not been designated as Accredited Official Statistics.
which 1,400 (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. 300 major commercial decisions were granted, down 5% from the same quarter a year earlier and 1,100 minor commercial decisions were granted, down 6% from the same quarter a year earlier (Live Table P120B, PS2 Dashboard). In the year ending June 2026, 6,200 decisions were made on applications for commercial developments, of which 5,600 (90%) 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 2025. 1,200 major commercial decisions were granted, down 8% from the previous year and 4,400 minor commercial decisions were granted, down 7% from the previous year.
Commercial decisions In April to June 2026, 1,600 decisions were made on applications for commercial developments, of
Trends in the percentage of residential and commercial decisions granted SEE Fig 7 opposite
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 37,700 in the quarter ending June 2026, accounting for 51% of all decisions, down from 54% of all decisions made in the quarter ending June 2025. Authorities granted 91% of these applications and decided 92% within 8 weeks or the agreed time (Reference Table 2, PS2 Dashboard). In the year ending June 2026, 145,600 decisions were made on applications for householder developments, accounting for 50% of all decisions, down from 52% of all decisions made in the year ending June 2025. Authorities granted 90% of these applications and decided 93% within 8 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 2026 there were 12 decisions, of which all 12 were granted and 11 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 2026, local planning authorities reported 551 PiP (minor housing-led developments) decisions, 34 TDC (minor housing-led
www.planninginlondon.com
developments) decisions and 5 TDC (major developments) decisions. The number of PIP decisions has increased notably since 2020, when there were about 60 decisions per quarter. The figure of 551 in April to June 2026 is up 79% from the same quarter a year earlier. (Live Table PiP/TDC1, PS2 dashboard).year earlier. (Live Table PiP/TDC1, PS2 dashboard). 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 2026, 6,000 applications were reported, of which prior approval was not required for 3,300, permission was granted for 1,600, and 1,200 were refused. This resulted in an overall acceptance rate[footnote 8] of 81%. Large householder extensions accounted for 57% of all PDR applications reported, with 30% relating to All others, and 6% relating to Commercial, Business and service to residential (Live Tables PDR1/PDR2). In the quarter to June 2026, 700 permitted development right applications were made for changes to residential use, of which 500 (68%) were given the go-ahead without having to go through the full planning process. Overall during the 49 quarters from April 2014 to June 2026, district planning authorities reported 386,400 applications for prior approvals for permitted developments. For 213,200 of them prior approval was not required, 93,300 were granted and 79,900 were refused (Live Table PDR2). n
pil 139 October-December 2026
39
BRIEFING | LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM - SEPTEMBER MEETING
Draft new London Plan New NPPF – implications for London New typologies for a changing London Account of the London Planning and Development Forum meeting on Tuesday 15th September 2026 hosted by Ian Gordon at the LSE Report also at www.planninginlondon.com >LPDF Michael Edwards This meeting of the Forum was dedicated to Professor Michael Edwards, a longtime supporter of the Forum and its frequent host at UCL. Members were invited to say a few words in his memory. Find the tribute from UCL here: https://tinyurl.com/y4rumbxt –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
TOPICS 1] Draft new London Plan Paul Cheshire LSE; Jay Allan London Society [What does the new London Plan mean for ordinary Londoners?], Ian Gordon LSE; Dr Adam Yousef Head of Economics, Greater London Authority
Consultation closes on 15th October
2] New NPPF – implications for London Michael Bach, London Forum of Amenity Societies, Richard Pestell partner and Victoria Bennion associate planner at Rapleys, followed by an open discussion: short contributions invited. 3] Modelling and delivering urban growth New typologies for a changing London and delivering growth through the new London Plan with illustrated examples by Emily Newton Director and Ed Sharland of Assael.
Attendance on Tuesday 15th June 2026 hosted by LSE Brian Waters BWCP chairman Jay Allan, London Society Paul Cheshire LSE Adam Yousef GLA Ian Gordon LSE Emily Newton Assael Ed Sharland Assael Michael Bach London Forum Richard Pestell Rapleys Victoria Bennion Rapleys Jason Katz UCL Stephen Heath Bloomsbury Society Tim Gough Austin Winkley Duncan Bowie UCL Robert Milne Antelope Peter Eversden London Forum David Edwards Placemake
40
Planning in London
Dr Nicholas Falk Urbed Trust Mark Loveday Amm-ltd.co.uk, Amardip Healey Blake Morgan Paul Campbell Richborough Jennifer Alder-Potts London Society Judith Ryser Urban Design Group Katharina Winbeck London Councils
Apologies: Colin Wilson, L B Southwark Maxwell Marlow Adam Smith Institute Esther Kurland TfL Ian Butcher Am-plan Nisha Gill hgh Consulting David Bloy British Land Priya Manoharan Gensler
Anthony Carlile Anthony Carlile architects Riette Oosthuizen HTA Design Brian Whiteley RTPI Laurence Thompson HBF Mark Willingale Willingale Assocs Nic King Deon Lombard
For Michael Edwards The meeting was dedicated to Michael, a great supporter, contributor and many-times a host of the Forum at UCL.
Who attended: To give an idea of who contributes to the London Planning and Development Forum here are the brief introductions of those who arrived on time I’m Brian Waters. I have chaired this Forum for a long time, and I’m a chartered architect and chartered town planner. Edward Sharland: Hi, everyone. Edward Sharland from Assael Architecture, where I’m a director. We specialise in residential work in London. Emily Newton: I’m Emily Newton, also a director at Assael Architecture. We work in the living sectors, with my focus more on the planning side. Adam Yousef: Hello all. I’m Adam Yousef, Head of Economics at the Greater London Authority. Ian Gordon: I'm Ian Gordon from LSE, with an engagement in London-wide planning going back to early LPAC days, then a spell on Mayor Livingstone's (short-lived) External Advisory Commission and a (full) 7 years on Mayor Johnson's Outer London Commission. Paul Cheshire: I’m Paul Cheshire of this parish. I’ve been interested in London, and the economics of London planning, for a very long time. Once upon a time, in a former life, I was the interlocutor with John Letts for the National Housing and Planning Advisory Unit and its interest in London. Tim Goff: I’m an architect. I’m an ex-civil servant and retired geographer, and once upon a time I was on the external advisory committee for the new Greater London Authority, which came and shut down after about five months. Peter Eversden: My name is Peter Eversden. I’m
www.planninginlondon.com
Vice-President of the London Forum of Amenity and Civic Societies, representing about 130 amenity and civic groups across the capital. We work on anything the Government and the GLA invent in the way of planning changes, and keep our members informed of how they would affect them. We held a conference last evening for our members with the London Plan team to explain particular aspects of their proposals. There was quite a lot of criticism from our audience, which I hope goes forward in proposed amendments that will attract the interest of the examining inspectors. Michael Bach: I’m Michael Bach. I’m Chair of the Planning, Environment and Transport Committee for London Forum. I used to work for the Government writing national planning policy. Jason Katz: I’m Jason Katz, from the Bartlett School of Planning. I was a close collaborator with the late Michael Edwards across his work in the Just Space Community Planning Network and, furthermore, in our forthcoming co-edited book on the development history of King’s Cross. Duncan Bowie: I’m Duncan Bowie, Research Associate in the Bartlett School of Planning at UCL, having previously taught planning at a number of other universities in London. I was previously a member of the GLA London Plan team in the early 2000s. For the last ten years I’ve been chairing a net-
work on strategic planning in the wider South East, and for 18 years I’ve been chairing a national policy and research group on housing delivery, known as the HIPS group. Several people in the room are involved in one or other of those networks. Jennifer Adler-Potts: I’m Jennifer Adler-Potts, Programme Manager of the London Society. I’m also a trustee. My background is in public affairs, community engagement and media communications. Stephen Heath: I’m Stephen Heath, an architect and designer representing the Bloomsbury Association. Victoria Benyon: I’m Victoria Benyon, an Associate Partner at Rapleys in London. Richard Pestell: I’m Richard Pestell, a partner at Rapleys. I was a student of Professor Gordon from 2000, who sent me to planning school, and I’m now here today. I write a lot of borough evidence-base documents — employment plan reviews and employment strategies for boroughs — translating the London Plan when it comes to that. That’s my day-to-day work. Amardip Healy: I’m Amardip Healy. I think I must be the only solicitor in the room, and I work for Blake Morgan Legacy Planning. Katharina Winbeck: I’m Katharina Winbeck. I’m Associate Director for Planning, Transport and Infrastructure at London Councils, the membership organisation. n >>>
pil 139 October-December 2026
41
BRIEFING | LP&DF THE DRAFT NEW LONDON PLAN
The draft new London Plan Is the draft new London Plan ‘fit for purpose’? Michael Edwards The meeting began with tributes to Michael Edwards, a long-time attendee and contributor to the forum who passed away in August. Participants shared memories of Michael's work in planning, community engagement, and his role in founding the Just Space Network. New London Plan Discussion The discussion then shifted to the New London Plan, opened by Jay Allen for the London Society. Key changes in the plan were highlighted, including shifts in housing numbers, green belt development, and policies on affordable housing, industrial land, and tall buildings.Jay emphasized the importance of involving ordinary Londoners in shaping the plan to ensure it benefits the diverse community.
Lon ondon don Pla lanning nning an and Developm velopment ent For orum: m: 15 Sept pt 2026 Hou ousing: sing: an existe istential ntial cr crisis isis for or Lon ondon on & Londoners: Lo doners: decent de cent ho home mes, s, soc ocial ial co cohe hesion, sion, equ quality, ality, eco conomic nomic pe performance formance Housin singg Aff ffordabilit rdabilityy Ratio: tio: 202 023 Affordability varies widely across LAs
London - epicentre of ‘unaffordability’ Worst non-GLA LA: St Albans 17.61 Best: Burnley
Paul ul Cheshi eshire re: LSE/CEP /CEP
!"#$ !" #$%&'( %&'())(*(+" *(+"&'( &'(,,-./( ./(0$$#-1( $#-1(!" !"#$#$-(2# 2#%34%&'( 4%&'(56"/7 "/733-8%"&$9 8%"&$9 !"#$%"&'()*+,-./0*123'' & & & & & & &&&&&&&&-./012345&
London Plan Engagement Challenges Jay discussed the low public engagement with the draft London Plan, estimating that less than 1% of Londoners have read it, attributing this to limited publicity and the document's length. He emphasized the need for the industry and borough politicians to advocate for the plan and increase awareness among the public. Paul presented data highlighting London's housing affordability crisis and argued that building more houses is crucial, noting that historical housing supply in London has systematically fallen short of demand. London Plan Draft Criticism Professor Paul Cheshire criticized the draft London plan as "not fit for purpose," arguing it not only fails to achieve realistic housing targets but, more seriously, provided no credible mechanisms to reach even the reduced target it proposed. Moreover, the draft plan lacks strategic planning capabilities. He noted that while the plan introduces a presumption of development near well-connected stations, the revised NPPF implies this doesn't apply to greenbelt land and 68% of London's well-connected stations are located in its greenbelt. The tone of the draft plan strongly suggested
42
Planning in London
3.73
!"#!$!""%& '()"#()%% !""!$)%)%& *(+!%(!,% & &&&&&&&&&&&&$&)("6#(%,%
!"#$"#!"#$%&
'()*+,
-+./0(1*+23
89:8;899<
=8>?>><
'+/4051*+2!-6527( ;8?@==?8A:
8998;@<@<
>BB?>><
C8?98@?>@<
D(,4E1*+2
;!8=8?<<<
-+./0(1*+23!/()!6(5,!+J!/+/4051*+2!7)+K16!"#$%& F(E5,(
G+43(!/()!%,,*1*+250!/()3+2
89H8;899< 8998;@<<<
<I>8 <I>@
@<<8;@<8< @<88;@<@<
<I89 <IA@
!"#$ "#$#% #%&$ &$#% #%'#% #%() ()%*+ *+),+)-% ),+)-%. • ! • ! • ! • • ! • !
‘Official’ house building target for the GLA (shortfall against ‘need’) 88,000 p.a. Mayor’s draft plan has a target of 55,800 annually "!! ‘the most ambitious deliverable figure’ #$%$&!'()*+!,-.,!/01+!--2333!/45'+'!6++)!65(78!()!4)+! 9+0:!;(8/()!8/+!0:+0!4<!8/+!*5::+)8!=>?!645)@0:(+'!– ….Maybe City Hall has a point! ABC!70:D+'8!)5E6+:!4<!/45'+'!65(78!;(8/!8/+!=>?!0:+0 !'()*+!,FGH!;0'!I.2GIJ!–!()!,F.3 So Mayor’s target too, either 1)unrealistic or 2) !:+K5(:+'!:0@(*072!'8+L"change to achieve…
the Mayor would not use his powers to try to impose greenbelt release on the Boroughs. Ian expressed similar concerns about the political willingness of the Mayor to seriously pursue necessary greenbelt reform or think strategically about the lessons of repeated failure to deliver on promised rates of housing delivery.
London Plan Consultation Critique Professor Ian Gordon criticised the London Planners’ use of the consultation processes for legitimation purposes, misrepresenting the sources of support for serious Green Belt reform (as just ‘developers’) and a continuing failure to engage collaboratively with Wider South East authorities, as advocated by the (Mayorally ignored) Outer London Commission report and required by the current Plan. He highlighted how housing targets have repeatedly failed to be met, with the current target of 88,000 rising due to previous failures to meet lower targets, and questioned how the plan can achieve long-term strategic planning goals given the political cycle and lack of continuity between mayors. Dr. Adam Yousef, GLA head of economics, agreed that the Plan does not account for London’s legislative and fiscal realities, noting that it serves as a projection rather than a forecast, and warned that the current plan may become obsolete due to upcoming changes in fiscal devolution and local governance funding mechanisms. London Plan Critique Discussion Speaker and other participants discussed significant issues with the London Plan, including its disconnect from current realities, flawed projections, and ineffective collaboration with surrounding areas. They highlighted the need for a complete rethink of the planning system, emphasizing the importance of clear strategic goals, better communication, and more accessible documentation. The group also criticized the lack of cooperation with neighboring authorities and suggested focusing on strategic choices rather than detailed targets, while noting the plan's weaknesses in addressing broader economic and housing market factors. London Plan Criticism and Concerns The London Plan was criticised by Duncan Bowie for being development-led rather than plan-led, arguing that it focuses on quantity over quality and doesn't adequately address housing needs for ordinary Londoners. It was highlighted that the plan lacks guidance on housing mix and is weaker than the revised NPPF, particularly regarding development in the Green Belt. The discussion revealed widespread concerns about housing via-
www.planninginlondon.com
!"#$ "#$#% #%&$ &$#% #%'#% #%() ()%*+ *+),+)-% ),+)-%. • !"#$%&$'()(*+,-%).%/"%0"&1'#$%234$'#%'5$#'*$.% % 3%6",.$%7,)-8)(*%).%."%040-)0'-9% • :"/'-%6",.$.%7,)-/%)(%/6$%'#$'%"+%/6$%;<=%7",(8'#)$.> !!!!!"#$%&'(%1"./3?'#%6",.$%7,)-8)(*%19'9%@ABC3@AC@%D%EEFA@G% !!!!!)*'(!+&,&-(%2%4$'#.%% GHGH3GHG2%D%@IFIHG • When was even the Mayor’s 55,000 target last achieved? • % J$$8%/"%*"%7'0K%+,#/6$#%3%/"%7$+"#$%LLMM>% • % % % ./01!(*!./02!3!415.0/ • Before the imposition of London’s Green Belt in 1955 ➢ % +#$$N)(*%-'(8%.,11-4 • O$+"#$%/6$%0"&1-$P)/)$.%'(8%,(0$#/')(/4%)(/#"8,0$8%74% % ",#%Q,')(/%:"?(%R%S",(/#4%T-'(()(*%=0/%"+%@AUC
Wee ha have ve a Draft Draft Pla lann …. la lacks cks ur urgency gency • !"#$%&'$()&*+&),+*()-+'.%/0+ • The Mayor’s draft pitch: “I want to forge a new consensus on planning that’s fit for 21st century !"#$%#$&!'()*)!')!+,-.%!/()!011#*%0+.)!(#,2-$3!')!$))%!–!-$4.,%-$3!#$ !parts of the green belt…. need to increase land that is !"#$%#"&'!green.” • Significant shifts, notably strategic assessment of London’s Green Belt, ➢+ identified Broad Locations for Growth…BUT separate document • 1().+$)+2*&)+%./&$)"+3.%4+!"#$!%&!+.0-0+#&%&+506+ “This Plan has been informed by a strategic assessment of London’s GB… !/# -%)$/-15 /()!6#2/!2,2/0-$0+.)!.#40/-#$2!1#*!3*#'/(!'-/(-$!-/7!8#')9)*&!-$!.-$) !'-/(!4.)0*.5!0*/-4,.0/)%!:#.-45!0$%!()*+",-&."/01/"2"/"#3"045670/()!;.0$!60-$/0-$2! 0!+*#'$1-).%<first approach...reflected in the phasing…(representing a smaller !:*#:#*/-#$!#1!#9)*0..!3*#'/(!$))%2!-$!),"02%/()0890'"*/(0of the Plan)…”
• =*!!>7??! !
“If we do not make the most of all the opportunities on brownfield land there will be !!:*)22,*)!/#!*).)02)!1,*/()*!@*))$!A)./!.0$%!0$%!0%9)*2)!)$9-*#$6)$/0.&!4#$3)2/-#$! !and health impacts will increase. “'%()('*+$',-%&!.'/%00'-+11)&
!"#$%"&' !" #$%"&'() ())*' )*'+, +,,"-%' ,"-%'./ ./'+0 +00+ 0+-12/$13' -12/$13',+ ,+-' -'.4 .41$+/' 1$+/' • + • • + • $ •
• + • + •
!"#$%&'()*+,$)*'-,#.%"+%/+&)0)1%,-)"# +‘close to’ ‘well2connected stations’ Both ‘close to’ and ‘well2connected’ clearly defined 345+."+6.&)$+7%"&%"+$)8.%"+9:;+%/+1<"&+(1%*)+#%+6)112(%"")(#)&+ *#<#.%"*+.*+."+=$))"+3)1#+>?@)*@.$)+A+3'B'C1.)0<D+EFGHI+5<J1)+K !"#$%&&'$()*+,-(./0"$/"$1230,)$01$#*3*40(-*".$#0*+$"0.$ 2((45$/"$6)**"$7*4.8$But… L%#+."+#@)+&$</#+,1<"+–+)M('*)+#.-."8N+3'#+8.0)"+8$'&8."8+#%")+ $)+=$))"+3)1#+&)0)1%,-)"#+2+&%'J#+#@<#O+L)0)$#@)1)** London Plan could change this at least for ‘well2connected’ stations 6.#@."+=7P+'*."8+#@)+")6+-<B%$<1+,$)$%8<#.0)+,%6)$* In Plan ‘well connected stations’ to generate 3$%<&+7%(<#.%"*+/%$+ =$%6#@+>37=*I+<$)+1.*#)&+–+*%+$)(%8".*)& 3'#+<1*%+)M,1.(.#+#@<#+&)0)1%,-)"#+."+#@%*)+37=*+%/#)"+&),)"&*+ + %"+"%#+B)#+$)<1.*)&+–+)0)"+/'"&)&+–+infrastructure…
pil 139 October-December 2026
>>>
43
BRIEFING | LP&DF THE DRAFT NEW LONDON PLAN
!"#$%#"%&' &'("# ("#)* )*&+% &+%#,-& -&'# '#$"#'.% .%#+$%# %#+.* .*#/0*/."1 /."1
>>> bility, with participants noting that affordable housing targets are unachievable under current market conditions and that the plan fails to address fundamental issues like homelessness and local authority bankruptcy.
• !"#$#%&$'#()*+(#$#+&,#(%-).&-#/#&01&2%#'&3)$#$11&$-$+2&(4# # tracking back, positive social media: but…. # +5#*5$6(# +5%#")%#"5-#17-15(& • 89$%#$#16$+#:;<=#35#)(#&+(7-&#$3&>7$%&4#3&2&+%# # 957()+*#?#'$)+%$)+#&"")2)&+%#"7+2%)5+)+*#5"#%9)%@A • If this draft is adopted GLA will FAIL to build Mayor’s # BB4CCC##957()+*#%$-*&%#)+!"#$!year. A fine history of…
Southwark Housing Policy Discussion One speaker discussed Southwark's approach to council housing, noting that unlike other areas, Southwark did not sell off significant amounts of council housing and appears better supplied for social housing needs. He highlighted the need for more informal debate on environmental and housing issues, referencing GLA Economics research showing that building more houses makes housing more affordable, and comparing successful housing reforms in New Zealand to the challenges in London due to opposition to overdevelopment. Michael Bach opened discussion of the new NPPF and its implications for London (next page).
2&'%&"3# %&"3#,-&''$' ''$'45#6'-3# -3#$'7*1 *1&"1"# &"1"#4&/#81%911'# 11'#/-&'# &'#&'(#*1&-$% -$%3
&12345 %6556278' 9:;25<1==
'(()*(+ FG4CCC FF4IJC GHC
'((,*(GC4BCC FC4GIC KC4KGC
'(..*./ GG4HCC KI4LGC KB4HIC
'(.+*.0 HF4CCC KL4HLC FF4BKC
'('.*'/ BF4CCC KJ4KFC GF4NNC
'('+*'0 BB4CCC MMM MMM
• Will not comment on its contribution to ‘maintaining’ the
!"#"$"%&" !" #"$"%&"
• !"#$"%&#'()*+,(-(./0*1*(.+0+2,%#3*(456789(!"#$%&"'&()$&*+,)(&(*-./%0& & 1*$$'+',&()$&1*$$'&2$3(&("&%"34$&()$&)"5%+',&.*+%+%6&:/1;/1<( ( ="#(!#1>&#(?/&(!%>%#$'(5678'(5@A(BC.D<(8EFG7G87H5IIEG6G5(
What does this mean for ordinary Londoners? Jay Allen for the London Society !"#$%&$'(&
!"#$$%$&'%$'"($)($'*(+,-''.''+(,$)/#0"1
!"#$%&%'()(* !"#$%&$'%"(%")*$%+(#*,$-"(#.#"(#",$/-0-/$*%/-#,-#*1
!"#$‘%#&’ '()*()$+,-)
+',-.-,'."-,&/'$"0'1'021%&'3"%4 2#$(#34,#$4"($5#+.$*54.#$,5#$&6,67#$%&$'%"(%"$– -"$,5#$.63+-/$-",#7#*,1
5$'3&6178'"8',"99#$-0-&: 2#$*.#48$&%7$,5#$.#%.+#$95%$+-0#$9-,5$,5#$%6,/%:#*$%&$.+4""-";$(#/-*-%"*1
!"#$%&'()%$"*)%+(#,%-'.%'.&*,#./%0',&',(.)1
;17<:/'="%,1:0:/'.-:-0:/'%&310&: 2#)0#$3##"$#<.+%7-";$5%6*-";=$7#,7%&-,=$-"(6*,7-4+$+4"($4"($;7%9,5$4++$>#471
!"#$%&%'#()*$+%,-%&./0(1%23&)%4,(5,(%.3,*65 6,,/%60/#%(#7)%— &(5%23,%1#).%&%.&+8
!"#$%&&"'$$($$)*+,-../$)0.$12'32'$4256.-#
!"#$%&'$("&)* !"#$%&'()'*+,--'.$,*/
0
4
9
1-$#2()-/&'3$/*
5+%'6")#")-,/'/+"72#'8$,-
5+-,-'(*')--#/'*"'-:"2:-
!"#$%&'#(")$!&"$*+#,+#$-+%."/0$/&.#1)$2'//"3$2+)/$ — #+$/"%&#.%'4$,"/'.45
6#,$4'3("40$,+#7/$0"/$— 8./&$/&"$#92:"3)$/+$)&+8$ ./5
!&"$;4'#<$'#,$&+8$8"$/'41$':+9/$./<$#"",$/+$3"'%&$ =93/&"35
++,-...
,+.-...
!"#$%&'"($)*+,")"-.$/0/1–/023
,&4"+!'"!)5*(("(("-$%&6(7!,$!""-
!"#$&8$%&'"($*+"$()799$":;"<)"-$)&$<&'"$8+&'$=+&#!87"9-$9*!-> !"#$%&'$()#*%$%)+',$-#''.$/'0%$1.2$*"+'$).23*%#)10$01.2$1#'$".$%&'$%140'$%""5
44
Planning in London
BRIEFING | LP&DF THE DRAFT NEW LONDON PLAN
!"#$%"&'("&)*+,"%-
!"#$%&'#(")$*&'*$%+,-.$)&'/"$"0"12.'2$3+#.+# 4
!"##$%&#'()%*+,'-,$.%/0#"#%,(12%3'4$5'#-%4$-%$##-#-
9
B7/$%8#$("#2%(4<#%7$%4%*,..#"%"#2,-#$(,4'%"7'#
5
6+*+"*2%.#(%$7(,8#4*'9%-#$2#"
:
C'#4"%8,(9/,-#%"+'#2%7$%(4''%*+,'-,$.2
6
::;<%=2%;:><%(+"$2%(0#%(4".#(%,$(7%4%-#',=#"9%-#*4(#
;
D#("7@,(%=2%"#-#=#'73A#$()%842#%*9%842#E%$7(%*'4$<#(
7
?@@7"-4*'#%07+2,$.%(0"#207'-2%20,@(%*9%4"#4
<
!"##$%2348#%87+$(2%A7"#%42%-#$2,(9%",2#2
8
67A#%,$-+2(",4'%'4$-%*#87A#2%07+2,$.
4=
F4(4%8#$("#2%.#(%(0#,"%7/$%2("4(#.,8%37',89
:;<
=<
>=<
=?<@
!"#$%&'&()#*#+*,--./#0&#%*+&#* 1233&'#'45&#$4#65*7
!"#$%&'()'$(*+#'*$'%,#'%-./#'0-#++1 2,#-#3+'%,#'4*/#-'5($6#-+.%*($7 !"#$%&'#()*+,-&+.
!"#&)/%)&,))0%&.#&1)
• Building Design
• The Mayor's own platform
• Property Week
.(/'&-(/%"&$#&$%01)/%2&3$)0$)"%-&0$&2$*&'(1)4&(/-&/5'*/662 %"/0&'("&7%/#'&3$)0$)&86/)9
• Borough politicians
8
=
• Architects' Journal
• Local & regional papers
94:($#;-)$#'&)64:<#— *<+4,*$& !"#$%&'(')$%*+,-(-.$%'/"0,#1'2(3"'-4"')(*"'0+5,.),#6
>-)%#6452$2,2*:)#$4#&:3*3& 7(#$/(,'(%&'5$/$+84'— 8"-'-4"2'.%-$'-4"'&"5(-"9'%$-':+*-'%$-.%8'.-6
• CoStar
• Your neighbours • Housing Today
?
@6'&*<#$%'< ;,."%-*'(%&')$,,"(8+"*9'#"*'— 5+-'#$+/'%".845$+/*'-$$6'7$*-'4(<"%=-'4"(/&'$>'-4.*'?,(%6
What's missing from the Plan, from where you sit? What would make it land with people who aren't in this room? What should we push the Mayor and boroughs to do differently? – Jay Allen
What has the NPPF ever done for London? Michael Bach says it’s an improvement (not difficult), long overdue, nothing but a power grab! Disclosure: Author of PPGs/PPSs – 3 types: Procedure, positive planning & development control. I did positive ones: housing, town centres and location. NPPF: 2012-2025: failure to plan for sustainable development • no spatial dimension meant that NPPF failed to promote sustainable patterns of urban development • says nothing about London/cities – proposes onesize-fits all! LP&DF – We should look at NPPF through the lens of an engaged Londoner, after 5 editions of the London Plan – we should recognise that London has had a 26-year start! London – the GLA and boroughs - can take care of planning in London. Previous Government frequently referred to “the right development in the right place” – but never explained where that would be. 2026 NPPF: now proposes development at higher density around sta-
www.planninginlondon.com
tions – London developed that policy before 2000 to focus development on stations and town centres. NPPF change is welcome but too little, too late: outside London - too many developments and outstanding permissions are in unsustainable locations – 15 “wasted years” in terms of unsustainable developments Housing Targets – standard method Draft London Plan proposes 558,000 new homes over 10 years, not 880,000 proposed by Standard Method, which would be unattainable. 558,000 is what could be accommodated or even what could be deliverable. No point in setting unrealistic targets. One-size-fits-all - power grab Government criticism of London Plan – too long/too detailed/intruded into local policy But London Plan was/is innovative/progressive
and provided thought leadership in planning policy development NPPF now intruding into local plans – no concept of subsidiarity. Example: proposing taller buildings on corner sites! Green Belt Divisive issue in Outer London. London Plan has identified sites and Mayor has agreed a review. MOL – a different issue/different use – will continue to be protected. OVERALL: NPPF is an improvement on previous ones, but its one-size-fits-all approach is totally inappropriate – not helpful or of limited relevance for planning in London Bottom Line: it is a material consideration – the Government is incapable of writing London-specific policies – I know because I tried! n >>>
pil 139 October-December 2026
45
BRIEFING | LP&DF NEW NPPF – IMPLICATIONS FOR LONDON
New NPPF – implications for London >>> Michael Bach of the London
Forum of Amenity Societies spoke first. His notes are on the previous page. Richard Pestell partner and Victoria Bennion associate partner at Rapleys presented the slides on this and the facing pages.
!"#$%&'(#)%"*+,"&+-./"&,
NPPF Critique and London Needs Richard Pestell expressed disappointment with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) document, criticizing it for being a one-size-fits-all approach that fails to address London's specific needs and sustainable development patterns. He noted that London has already developed policies around station areas and town centers, which the NPPF now suddenly recommends, describing this as "too little, too late." He concluded that London doesn't need the NPPF and that the document should focus on higher-level policies rather than detailed implementation details.
•
!"#$%&'()'("(*+$,)-.)'/)#$)0"1&(2+')0%''(34(35%1(678(,390(#$"00%1'("0.( 3,:%1(#13#%1,&(#134%'')30"$'
•
;+1(<$"00)0=(.)5)')30(34(>7(3#%1",%'(0",)30"$$&?(9),:(,:%($"1=%',(,%"*( $3/",%.()0(@30.30
•
A.5)'%(30(#$"0(*"B)0=?(*")0$&(30(,:%(%/303*)/(').%?(431(C3+0/)$'()0').%( "0.(3+,').%(@30.30D ̶ E0').%(@30.30(F3+0'$39?(G04)%$.(H(I%9:"*("1%(/$)%0,'(9),:(#$"0'(",($)5%( %J"*)0",)30(039 ̶ ;+,').%(K%.9"&(H(;J431.(C),&(",(G)<L
•
A0.(931B(9),:(M%5%$3#%1'(( ̶ @).$?(N")0'2+1&'?(A''3/)",%.(O1),)':(P33.'?(G22'4$%%,(M%5%$3#*%0,(C31#?(@HQ?( <%="')(
•
R:%1%("1%($3,'(34(.%,")$%.(/:"0=%'()0(,:%(I<<PS("0.("($3,(,3(2%(/$"1)4)%.
•
We can only speak from our clients’ perspective –(,:%()''+%'(,:%&("1%( "'B)0=(+'("23+,(
•
A0.()4(/:"0=%'("1%(0%%.%.(,3(,:%)1(/+11%0,(',1",%=&?("0.T31(%5).%0/%(
!""#$%&'$()&')&$*+,'-&.•
!"#$%&'($)'*+(,$–$-"(."($-/0$1&+2(34$'#2$56772#2.$58$392$-"(."($/&'(
•
:"#"6,94$7";64+(,$"($3#'(4&'3+(,$392$;6##2(3$-"(."($/&'($+(3"$-";'&$/&'(4 ̶ <2'&+(,$=+39$+44624$46;9$'4$>(32(4+7+;'3+"($?96,2$%#"5&2)$+($)8$4%92#2@ ̶ A+'5+&+38$+44624$ ̶ 0(.B$+($)'(8$%&';24$'$&';*$"7$&'(.$3"$."$)6;9$–$.24%+32$392$-"(."($/&'($2C+.2(;2$ 46,,243$&"34$"7$C';'(3$&'(.D$ ̶ E#22(52&3$9'4$522($'$&"(,$#6)5&+(,$+4462$–$2C2($=92#2$:"#"6,94$='(3F$E-0$=2#2$ "5G2;3+(,
•
H//!$5'#2&8$72'36#24$+($-"(."($:"#"6,9$I+/$.+4;644+"(D$$ ̶ :28"(.$392$("#)'&$,#'(.43'(.+(,$=2$'&&$;")2$3"$2J%2;3$ ̶ “There is a housing crisis –$so I should have homes on my industrial Site… “
̶ 0&39"6,9F$7"#$392$7+#43$3+)2$+($KL$82'#4F$>$9'.$4")2$.2C2&"%2#4$'4*+(,$7"#$+(.643#+'&$"($
%#"%"42.$9"64+(,$'&&";'3+"(4$?9'.B$&",+43+;4$9'4$;""&2.@
NPPF Planning Framework Discussion Richard discussed Rapley’s work with local authorities and developers across London and the southeast, highlighting challenges with the current London Plan's viability and implementation issues. He explained that while the new NPPF introduces some changes, these are not significantly different from previous guidance and largely maintain the existing framework, particularly outside of London where the standard method has been effective. He noted that local government reorganization has caused significant delays in tender processes, and emphasized the need for simpler technical approaches in planning, quoting David Vickery's advice to "keep it simple, stupid." The discussion also covered how the new NPPF's National Decision-Making Policies (NDMPs) create a stronger national framework that will impact planning decisions, with particular attention to biodiver-
46
Planning in London
•
H"#$)'G"#$72'36#2$+($392$-"(."($/&'($2C+.2(;2$5'42D$$M(&8$3="$)2(3+"(4$"7$ H//!$+($392$(2=$I;"(")+;$IC+.2(;2$:'42B$"(2$//E$?(2+392#$"7$'(8$ 46543'(;2N@
•
0;;2%3$392#2$9'4$522($4")2$#2;2(3$.+4;644+"($#2$9"64+(,$(6)52#4$=92#2$ Boroughs need post Yr 10 targets…
!"#$%&'()*(+),&), •
!"#$%&'(&)$*%–%+',%&",%$(#,-%.-(,,$#/&0%–%,-$%*/#$),/"&%"1%,#(2$3%-(.%&",% )-(&0$*
•
4$%(#$%.,/33%5$$,/&0%-"'./&0%&$$*%67,(&*(#*%!$,-"*8
•
4$%(#$%.,/33%9"./,/2$%#$0(#*/&0%$)"&"5/)%0#":,̶ ;1%(&<%="'&)/3%,"">%(%3$..%,-(&%9"./,/2$%(99#"()-%/&%,-$/#%93(&%–%,#"'+3$%
•
?%.$&./+3$%93(&%5(>$#%.-"'3*%(3:(<.%+$%3"">/&0%(,%.,(,/"&.@%1"#%3(&*%,-(,%:(.% 6."#,%"18%0#$<%(&*%5(A/5/./&0%*$&./,/$.B%%
•
Most councils, at least officer level, understood the Greenbelt was not sacred…
•
4$%.-"'3*%-(2$%(%0#(.9%"1%C$0/"&(3%.)(3$%&$$*.
D"#%5".,%="'&)/3.%E%+/00$#%/..'$.%,"%*$(3%:/,-%,-(&%,-$%FGGDH •
I-$%#$Eintroduction of new strategic plans (and ugly power grabs…)
•
The new, faster plan making system…
•
J")(3%K"2$#&5$&,%#$E"#0(&/.(,/"&%6IL=8
•
M.,/5(,$%–%/&%,-$%3(.,%NO%5"&,-.%)PQR%"1%,$&*$#.%-(2$%+$$&%*$3(<$*%6(,%(:(#*8S% &",%*'$%,"%FGGD%+',%JK%#$"#0(&/.(,/"&T%%/T$T%,-$%+#/$1U,$&*$#%*#(1,$*%+',%*$3(<.% in pressing the final button…
!"#$$%$&'!(#)*%)+'!,"%)-'./%0#$)+''–'12#*'%3'4++05 •
!"#$%#&'"(&)*$+*(,#-$$.##,$/$0"1#%$"##,$2#1)("$&32#$("$%'#$.445$
•
It bites…. 532$'36+("7$–$%'#$8%)",)2,$9#%'3,$(+$,(&%)%#,$:;$%'#$1#%'3,$+#%$36%$("$44<
•
! .3$=6#+%(3"+$>6"*#++$;36$)2#$)"$)772#++(?#$,#?#*3@#2$A(%'$%33$16&'$13"#;BC ! D3%+$3E$,#1372)@'#2+$*33F("7$E32$"#A$A32FB
532$#&3"31(&$@3*(&#+G$A#$)*+3$')?#$+31#$@)2)72)@'+
•
! H6%$%'#;$)2#$A(,#*;$,(+&2#,(%#,G$A2(%%#"$("$)$26+'$)",$?#2;$*(%%*#$76(,)"&#
! I')%$')+$:##"$)$@23:*#1$A(%'$%'#$3*,$.445$–$'3A$,3$;36$1#)+62#$A'#%'#2$)$J36"&(*$ (+$)1:(%(36+K$(E$%'#$44<$+);+$%'#;$&)"$>)*13+%C$1)F#$6@$%'#(2$#?(,#"&#$:)+#L$$ ! D3%+$3E$#&3"31(+%+$A)(%("7$%3$+@#",$13"#;$("$%'#$A("7+$–$&31@*(&)%(3"B$$
•
9)";$J36"&(*+$)2#$#+@#&()**;$?6*"#2):*#$%3$8%2)%#7(&$M)2#'36+#$&')**#"7#+$
•
N+@#&()**;$("$%'#$8N$)",$N)+%$–$:#&)6+#$"#(%'#2$O#7(3"$&311(++(3"#,$P3("%$ ‘strategic’ evidence ! 0"*(F#$%'#$M9$/$N1+
sity net gain requirements and their effect on local policies.
NPPF London Plan Policy Updates Victoria Bennion explained key changes in transport policies and development frameworks. She highlighted that policies now focus more on sustainable location choices rather than just mitigating transport impacts, with emphasis on connectivity assessments and high-density development around well-connected stations. The discussion also covered shifts in viability assessments, with new requirements for testing viability through plan-making rather than at application stage, and reduced flexibility for developers to negotiate down affordable housing requirements. The conversation concluded with concerns about strategic development strategies (SDSs) and regional planning challenges, particularly regarding uncertainty in areas with potential growth but unclear organizational structure. n
! Don’t want a Standard Method –!"#!#"$!%&&'#%()!–!*+,!%!-.,,-$!/#,$! )$-&0
6/('#07%)+'*,'8,3*')"%+$*3'–'don’t knee jerk –')2+)9'-,/('0%(+)*%,$',:'*(#7+"' –';#%*':,('*2+'!!.'#$0'#':+;'<(+)+0+$*3'*,';,(9'*2(,/&2
•
=$0'#3'#";#-3>'#3'<+('?#7%0'@%)9+(->'9++<'%*'3%8<"+'–'ABCCD
!"##$%&'()*+#$,'-*&".+*/'0$("%".+12*3"+#'4./"("$%'5-024%6 !"#$%&'%()*)+,%-.-/0%,12%344!%56,"#7)827%9%75+,568,%+)5,2%#:%39,5#69;%<285+5#6=>9?56*%4#;5852+%@3<>4+A%!"#$"% &''()%#**+,#&-+()%-.%'(&//#/0%&''(#$&-#./1%&/,%&2+%&%*&-+2#&(%$./1#,+2&-#./%.3%$2#-#$&(%#*'.2-&/$+4 5"+%62B%7285+5#6=$9?56*%C#;5852+%#/%-"+%62&*+!.278%!"#$"%"&9+%:++/%1+'&2&-+,%32.*% -".1+%2+(&-#/0%-.%'(&/;*&7#/08%!#((< •
*&7+%,+9+(.'*+/-%*&/&0+*+/-%*.2+%$+2-&#/8%$./1#1-+/-%&/,%1-2+&*(#/+,
•
1-&/,&2,#1+%'.(#$#+1%-"&-%&''()%&$2.11%-"+%!".(+%.3%=/0(&/,%>+404%-2&/1'.2-8%'.((?-#./8% "+2#-&0+8%(&/,1$&'+%&/,%1&3+-)%3.2%!.*+/%&/,%0#2(1@
•
!#-"%-"+%&#*%-.%2+,?$+%,?'(#$&-#./%&/,%&9.#,%?/A?1-#3#+,%(.$&(%,+9#&-#./%32.*%/&-#./&(%'.(#$)%#/%(.$&(%'(&/1
However, the NPPF (and ‘NDMPs’) are not statutory: •
They are a material consideration of ‘critical importance’ and are intended to establish a consistent national &''2.&$"%-.%7+)%'(&//#/0%$./1#,+2&-#./14
•
5"+%'(&/;(+,%'2.$+11%"&1%'2+$+,+/$+%–%2+*&#/1%-"+%1-&2-#/0%'.#/-%3.2%,+$#1#./%*&7#/0%#/%&$$.2,&/$+%!#-"%?';-.; ,&-+%,+9+(.'*+/-%'(&/14
•
B.!+9+28%-"+2+%*&)%:+%#/1-&/$+1%!"+2+%CDEFG1C%-&7+%'2+$+,+/$+%.9+2%-"+%E+9+(.'*+/-%G(&/%'.(#$#+1%>,+1'#-+% HIJ>K@%.3%GLGM@%!"+/%-"+2+%#1%&%$./3(#$-%–%‘materially inconsistent’%'.(#$)%>*&,+%&0&#/1-%'2+9#.?1%32&*+!.271@% to be given ‘very limited weight’.
!"#$%&'()*+),*-*(#$./-*0*"'$1/2$3/+4/+ !"#$%&'(7*'!+.542-3$",'$,' /81"4+'"/'54538$,89#.' 6.1.#"-2.,3
!"#$%&'(:*'!+$,%$-#.'"/' 0.1.#"-2.,3';$3<$,' 5.33#.2.,35
!"#$%&'()*'!+$,%$-#.'"/' 0.1.#"-2.,3'"435$6.' 5.33#.2.,35
• D&%$4),&.#&'$'2+"#'#E*),(,%' $15'"3)#&:4$'$**"+$(.' %+'5#(,&,+1:2$C,1B7
• F%"+1B'&3**+"%'0+"' 5#6#)+*2#1%'/,%.,1'#E,&%,1B' 3"4$1'$"#$&7
• F.,0%&'%.#'4$)$1(#'%+/$"5&' $**"+6$)'+0'&3&%$,1$4)#' 5#6#)+*2#1%7
• G**),($%,+1&'&.+3)5' B#1#"$))-'4#'$**"+6#5' 31)#&&'$56#"&#'#00#(%&' '&,'()+(*)--#'+3%/#,B.' 4#1#0,%&7
• !"#$%#&'$'()#$"#"'*+),(-' *$%./$-'0+"'(#"%$,1'0+"2&' +0'&3&%$,1$4)#' 5#6#)+*2#1%7
• @$""+/&'%.#'(,"(32&%$1(#&' /.#"#'5#6#)+*2#1%'&.+3)5' 4#'"#&,&%#57
• 8,&%&'%.#'(#"%$,1'0+"2&'+0' 5#6#)+*2#1%'%.$%'&.+3)5'4#' $**"+6#5'+3%&,5#'+0' &#%%)#2#1%&7
• H#,10+"(#&'"#5#6#)+*2#1%' +0'4"+/10,#)5'$15'315#": 3%,),')$157
• 91()35#&'&*#(,0,('&3**+"%' 0+"'5#6#)+*2#1%'$"+315' /#)):(+11#(%#5'"$,)/$-' &%$%,+1&7
3/+4/+$*56-*0)(*/+7 <.#'8+15+1'=)$1'"#2$,1&'*$"%'+0'%.#'&%$%3%+"-'>#6#)+*2#1%'=)$1?'43%'%.#'@==A'1+/'*"+6,5#&'$'23(.'&%"+1B#"'1$%,+1$)'5#(,&,+1: 2$C,1B'0"$2#/+"C'%.$%'23&%'4#'(+1&,5#"#5'$)+1B&,5#'8+15+1'$15'4+"+3B.'*+),(-7
!"#$%$&'#$()*+,-)&$#.+')/+0())-1#$2$#. !"#$%&'()'–'!*$+%$,#-'".'/-0-#",1-+2'3$24$+' 5-22#-1-+25 4*,/$8'6,)&5:6*#/$'#$'=10/5,'/='()0)./6:)$*';#*7#$'5,21$' 1,)1&3
•
•
>$-,)1&)('&566/,*'=/,'2,/;$=#).(',)8)$),1*#/$3
•
?$-/5,18)&'/6*#:#&1*#/$'/='&#*)'-161-#*+
!"#$%&'(6'–'!*$+%$,#-'".'/-0-#",1-+2'"725$8-' 5-22#-1-+25 •
"/-1*)(';#*7#$';1.%#$8'(#&*1$-)'/='1';)..9-/$$)-*)('&*1*#/$3
•
@).#0),&':#$#:5:'()$&#*+')A6)-*1*#/$&3
•
4566/,*&'&5&*1#$12.)'*,10).'61**),$&3
3()/()+$%"4$1'#$()5 • • • •
!
www.planninginlondon.com
Reinforces London’s “Making Best Use of Land” agenda. "#$%&'()$&#*+'(#,)-*.+'*/'-/$$)-*#0#*+'1$('1--)&#.#*+3' 4566/,*&'7#87),9()$&#*+'()0)./6:)$*'1,/5$(';)..9 -/$$)-*)('&*1*#/$&'1$('#$*),-71$8)&3' <--)&#.#*+'2)-/:)&'1'%)+'()*),:#$1$*'/='()0)./6:)$*' -161-#*+'–'$/*'&#:6.+'*,1$&6/,*'#:61-*3
!"#$%&'9:'–';<=$+>'?..-%2$0-' @5-'".'9<+8 •
"B<&'&7/5.('1-*#0).+'&566/,*' ()0)./6:)$*'*71*':1%)&' 2)**),'1$(':/,)'#$*)$�)'5&)'/='.1$(C'61,*#-5.1,.+'6,)0#/5&.+' ()0)./6)('1$('5$(),95*#.#&)('5,21$'.1$(3'
•
D,)1*)'1((#*#/$1.'7/:)&'*7,/587'5,21$'#$*)$&#=#-1*#/$C' #$-.5(#$8E'()0)./6:)$*'12/0)')A#&*#$8',)&#()$*#1.F-/::),-#1.' 6,):#&)&E'&)$&#*#0)',)()0)./6:)$*'/=')A#&*#$8'6./*&E'56;1,(' )A*)$&#/$&E'7#87),'25#.(#$8&'1*'&*,))*'-/,$),&E'1$('1((#*#/$1.' 7/:)&';#*7#$',)&#()$*#1.'-5,*#.18)&
!"#$%&'9A'–'B%4$-0$+>'B,,*",*$<2-'/-+5$2$-5 •
G)#$=/,-)&')==#-#)$*'5&)'/='.1$('1$(':1A#:#&#$8'()0)./6:)$*' -161-#*+'H'7#87),'()$&#*+'#&'$/;'1$')A6)-*1*#/$3
•
"I'&6)-#=#-1..+'&1+&'*71*'*7)'-6$&#$)7+18'9'1#-9+(:+')+'9-'+ &8(;4/+<-+#'=-)+$)#(+'11(;)#+<;#+&8(;4/+)(#+"9-14;/-+ /-2-4("%-)#+>8$18+%'=-&+#8-+%(&#+(:+')+'9-'?&+"(#-)#$'4@
•
J7),)'1,)'$/;'$1*#/$1.':#$#:5:'()$&#*#)&'1,/5$('-),*1#$' ,1#.;1+'&*1*#/$&3'
>>>
!""#$%&%'$–$()*+,-./,012$304$501601
pil 139 October-December 2026
47
BRIEFING | LP&DF NEW TYPOLOGIES FOR A CHANGING LONDON
>>>
New typologies for a changing London and delivering growth through the new London Plan ... with illustrated examples by Emily Newton and Ed Sharland of Assael Architecture London Housing Delivery Challenges Emily Newton, a director of Assael Architecture presented on housing typologies and delivery challenges in London, highlighting that current targets of 558,000 new homes in 10 years are significantly off track with only 327,000 expected to be delivered based on current rates. She discussed how traditional C3 housing is becoming unviable due to economic constraints, leading developers to explore alternative models like co-living, build-to-rent, and retrofitting existing buildings. The discussion included questions about space standards in co-living accommodations, with Ed Sharland explaining that the GLA has set an 18 square metre standard for co-living rooms, though this remains below the 37 sq m national standard for self-contained one-person units. Housing Affordability Policy Discussion They discussed Michael Bach's provocations about housing affordability, including the idea that public authorities should acquire unsold homes from developers during market downturns to stabilize housing supply. Michael shared experiences from the 1990 housing crisis when local authorities successfully purchased properties from struggling developers, though noted current challenges include competition with institutional investors and right-to-buy considerations. The group also discussed public appetite for housing development, with a speaker noting that housing rarely ranks among top voter priorities and that resistance to development often stems from concerns about property values rather than actual housing needs. Assael’s slides illustrate different emerging housing typologies becoming more accommodated by the draft London Plan as well as the market. n
!"#$%&'%()%*#+,+-
New typologies for a changing London • Ed and Emily discussed the challenge of meeting London’s significantly increased housing targets and the current gap between housing ambition and delivery. • Highlighted the need for a broader range of housing typologies to respond to changing demographics, affordability pressures, longer-term renting and changing expectations around flexibility, amenity and community. • Considered how different housing models should be matched to different site opportunities, including constrained sites, town centres, redundant offices, brownfield land and opportunities for retrofit/reuse. • Examples including Sunday Mills, The Eades, Chiswick Tower and Twickenham Green demonstrated how co-living, BTR, reuse and intelligently designed C3 housing can unlock challenging sites and contribute to wider regeneration. The discussion also highlighted how homes in highly connected locations may be particularly suited to professional renters, while bringing new residents, activity and spending into places such as town centres. • Discussed emerging gaps and evolution within the housing market, including amenity-light BTR, more nuanced co-living offers, family rental and routes into home ownership. • Emphasised that architects have done what is possible to improve viability but only so much we can do. To support this, there is a need for greater planning certainty, reduced risk for developers and more flexible approaches to affordable housing. • Concluded that achieving London’s housing ambitions is not simply about identifying capacity, but about creating the planning, viability and policy conditions that allow the right kind of homes, in the right places, to actually be delivered. • Final point: Why isn't housing seen as critical infrastructure in the same way that data centres are? n
48
Planning in London
!"#$"#%#&&$'%("%)**"++"$)(&%',-#,.,*)#(%-/"0(1 #$%&'%(&)*'+*'&,-.'&/.01%1&2$%&.34020*'&5*/&$*610'7&+%-08%/9&.:/*11&2$%&:.;02.-<
<"%)*1,&7&%(1,'=
2234555
>?)##,#-%*&/(),#(84%,#./)'(/@*(@/&4% 7,)A,?,(8%)#$%-""$%$&',-#%)??%1)7&%("% 0"/B%("-&(1&/C%D&+"7&%"#&%".%(1"'&% )#$%$&?,7&/8%'?"0'4%/&-)/$?&''%".%1"0% )+A,(,"@'%(1&%()/-&(%,'EC
1"+&'%6/"6"'&$%."/%!"#$"#% "7&/%(&#%8&)/'%("%95:;
>-067-861=/?+12+1@./!!"ABBBC*+,-/4(8=-4 U@-3H5A3F-4G--C34@-3K15L43M8C28C3N;5C34156-7481935C231-7-C432-;0=-19 ,-./01-234156-74819
!!"#
:43;54-<432-;0=-193154-
(!!"
>/?/;540=-3 @8?-<32-;0=-1-23 813A186-74-23 B4@8/<5C2<D
'!!"
'() ≈231k
&!!" %!!"
$%&# $!!" #!!" !"
$!$)
$!$*
$!$+
$!%!
$!%#
$!%$
$!%%
$!%&
$!%'
$!%(
$!%)
!!"#
!!3"#
$%3&#
!:;
23.1k
*+,-./)0(11-2
*+,-./1--2-2
0(4-.4/(115(0/2-067-89
+</(115(0/4(8=-4
(115(0/=()
8=-134-C39-51<3483$!%)
-57@39-51
C-435220408C<30C3$!$&E$'
5434@-3;54-<432-;0=-193154-
F-4G--C3451H-435C232-;0=-19
!1E$?+1?3+$3.F+$4,<$E7+2+$716+9$:4,$=+$<+3.F+2+<$74F+$:74,/+< !"#$#%$&'(%$)"# *+,-.,/$012$31,/+2 *+,-.,/$4$31,/5-+26$7189.,/$:71.:+ ;0012<4=.3.->$?2+9982+9 @2+4-+2$<+64,<$012$03+A.=.3.->B$:1668,.->$C$46+,.-> D12+$?210+99.1,433>$64,4/+<$2+,-43$1?-.1,9$
>>>
www.planninginlondon.com
pil 139 October-December 2026
49
BRIEFING | LP&DF NEW TYPOLOGIES FOR A CHANGING LONDON
!1G$?+1?3+$3.H+$4,<$G7+2+$716+9$:4,$=+$<+3.H+2+<$74H+$:74,/+< !"#$#%$&'(%$)"# *+,-.,/$012$31,/+2 *+,-.,/$4$31,/5-+26$7189.,/$:71.:+ ;0012<4=.3.->$?2+9982+9
>>>
@2+4-+2$<+64,<$012$03+A.=.3.->B$:1668,.->$C$46+,.-> K12+$?210+99.1,433>$64,4/+<$2+,-43$1?-.1,9$ #!%*%$#%$;*%$D%&'(%*')@$!"EF')@ !./7 9-2++-9$4,<$-1G,$:+,-2+9$42+$+H13H.,/ F82?389$100.:+$I$:166+2:.43$=8.3<.,/9 J21G,0.+3<$4,<$:1,9-24.,+<$9.-+9 K12+$7189.,/$G.-7.,$+9-4=3.97+<$?34:+9 @2+>=+3-$I$/2++,=+3-
!"#$%#&'#()'*+,-"*'+()','.,/&"'-,/$'(0'1(#2(#'.%3"*
456
41.6%
;<=<
(0'1(#2(#'+(7*"+(.2* -/%3,$".8'/"#$
(0'9"2%,#'-/%3,$"'/"#$"/ +(7*"+(.2'%#:(9"'&("*'(#'/"#$
,3"/,&"')"">.8'-/%3,$"'/"#$ %#'1(#2(#?'4@4AB4C
D7/-(*"E2"*%&#"2'/"#$,.'#""2*'$('*7--(/$'9(/"'*$,&"*'(0'.%0"?'#($'F7*$','*+(/$'$/,#*%$%(#' G"0(/"'()#"/*+%-
!"
!"#$%#$&'$($)*+,$*%'#"+-&)$%*"./0 #$%&'()')(*+),&)-,+,.&/&$)0%&/*&%/1$&/.%&$/2&3/44%,&2$/('45&6%*-%%,&.%,%(/*+),2 @)(,&8A<8B<"
123
@)(,&8AA8BA"
"!7 ;!7 C()')(*+),& )-,+,.&*$%+(& $)0%
5() 46))
:!7
423
9!7 8!7 !7
50
9!
98
99
9:
9; ?.%
9"
9<
9=
9>
123
423
46))
1;3
;6$8"+
*%'#/$78$(9#$4:
*%'#/$78$(9#$4:
*%'#"+-&)$9()
.*%#"$*%'#"+-&)$"(,#
7#,%##'$<*-*",+
6)(,&8A<8B<"
6)(,&8AA8BA"
/*&/.%&9>
3)(&*$%&5)D,.%(&1)$)(*&/*&9>
2$)-+,.&/&.%,%(/*+),/4&2$+3*
Planning in London
!"#$%&"'()*$&++,#$),,-'$.&$,/&0/,$()$#,'1&)', #$%&%'()*+,'-*%'.-/%0',$1,'2(00'.%%,'3-*/-*+)'45,5&%'$-5)(*6'*%%/)
23$456789:$;$8<<!5=8>?:
>@6?=$9!$5:A9
2!B?676AC
7-.%)'4-&'1' 2(/%'&1*6%' -4' $-5)%$-0/)
8&-4%))(-*1009' .1*16%/'0-*6: ,%&.'&%*,10
8&(;1,%'&--.)' 2(,$')$1&%/' 1.%*(,9
4>D8
?89:5$?676AC
5:95!<69
85&<-)%: /%)(6*%/' ),5/%*,'$-.%)
7-.%)'1*/' )5<<-&,'4-&' 16%(*6'2%00
=%2'0(4%'4-&' %>(),(*6' ?5(0/(*6)
!"##$%$&'()*&+"'"*&,()-..(#*%(+"##$%$&'(%$,/*&,$,
01231
014;<=>4<1
2CDE;F
4+-/'($5",'"&6()*77$%)"-.(89".+"&6,( -&+(%$'-"&($78*+"$+()-%8*&:
?%"&6(@*7$,(-&+(#**'#-..(8-)A("&'*( @"6@(,'%$$',(-&+('*B&()$&'%$,:
2,$(#.$5"8.$('G/*.*6"$,(*&()*&&$)'$+( 89'()*&,'%-"&$+(,"'$,:
!"#$%&'$'()$*+,('$-+"#$./$(.0)1$+"$'()$*+,('$%234)15 6789:;:<= #
!2')*"3'+>)$(.&1+",$0.#)21$ 43"$()2%$*)2+)>)$%*)11&*)$."$ '*3#+'+."32$(.&1+",$1'.4-?$
#
:'$%*.>+#)1$%&*%.1)8#)1+,")#$ 344.00.#3'+."$/.*$*)"')*1$ @(.$0+,('$.'()*@+1)$.44&%A$ *..01$+"$'*3#+'+."32$/30+2A$ (.&1)1?
#
:'$3##1$(.&1+",$@+'(.&'$ 4.0%)'+",$/.*$23"#$'A%+4322A$ 1&+')#$'.$4.">)"'+."32$/30+2A$ (.&1+",?$
#
:'$*)4.,"+1)1$*)"'+",$31$3"$ )1'3B2+1()#C$2.",8')*0$%3*'$./$ 9."#."D1$(.&1+",$.//)*
>>>
!"#$%&'()**+'+,-.+'/,%/'0-1*)2)#3'0%#'4%56'0-#+/7%)#6$'+)/6+'2)%8*69
www.planninginlondon.com
pil 139 October-December 2026
51
BRIEFING | LP&DF NEW TYPOLOGIES FOR A CHANGING LONDON
!"#$%&'$'()$*+,('$-+"#$./$(.0)1$+"$'()$*+,('$%234)15 6789:$;<$=>?; #
!2')*"3'+@)$(.&1+",$0.#)21$
#
!"#$%&'#($)*+,-'#($*#./&0$ &11+22+'&/-+.$+,#*$&$/34#$(/&/-+.$
43"$()2%$*)2+)@)$%*)11&*)$."$
&.'$("+))-.5$6&007$0#(($(3-/#'$/+$
'*3#+'+."32$(.&1+",$1'.4-A$
/*&'-/-+.&0$8&2-09$"+3(-.5$43/$5*#&/$
8'$%*.@+#)1$%&*%.1)B#)1+,")#$
8+*$)*+8#((-+.&0($1+223/-.57$
344.00.#3'+."$/.*$*)"')*1$
4*-.5-.5$8++/8&00$/+$/"#$"-5"$(/*##/
C(.$0+,('$.'()*C+1)$.44&%D$ *..01$+"$'*3#+'+."32$/30+2D$ (.&1)1A #
8'$3##1$(.&1+",$C+'(.&'$ 4.0%)'+",$/.*$23"#$'D%+4322D$ 1&+')#$'.$4."@)"'+."32$/30+2D$ (.&1+",A$
#
8'$*)4.,"+1)1$*)"'+",$31$3"$ )1'3E2+1()#F$2.",B')*0$%3*'$./$ 9."#."G1$(.&1+",$.//)* !"
!&1*3-#*#+$*%(/+#*4(&1*,8*+,0$.*(&*#+$*%(/+#*3"'2$.D ?@A?BC6A #
!"#$%&'#()$*+,-.(&/*0,1$".* 2'&*+$"3*%$"($)$*3%$..-%$*,&* #%'1(#(,&'"*+,-.(&/*.#,245*
#
6#*3%,)(1$.*3-%3,.$71$.(/&$1* '22,00,1'#(,&*8,%*%$&#$%.* 9+,*0(/+#*,#+$%9(.$*,22-3:* %,,0.*(&*#%'1(#(,&'"*8'0(":* +,-.$.5
#
6#*'11.*+,-.(&/*9(#+,-#* 2,03$#(&/*8,%*"'&1*#:3(2'"":* .-(#$1*#,*2,&)$&#(,&'"*8'0(":* +,-.(&/5*
#
6#*%$2,/&(.$.*%$&#(&/*'.*'&* $.#';"(.+$1<*",&/7#$%0*3'%#*,8* =,&1,&>.*+,-.(&/*,88$%
!"#$%#&'()*%+,(,+-.$+$(/0(+1#$2#03(4.#56#03(7,*8#6+$(,+02/5(/&&*99*6/2#*0(0+12( 2*(/(2.4+($2/2#*0(5+$$($.#2+6(2*(2,/6#2#*0/5(:/9#5;("*.$#03(4.2(3,+/2(:*,( 7,*:+$$#*0/5$(&*99.2#03<(/06(&5*$+(2*(/(5/,3+(+975*;9+02(6#$2,#&2
!"
G(.*#0)*)5"*2-65)*H-(.*+,*5+'"1*-(*)5"*2-65)*#$%&"1I ?!@A;BCDEF*C;BCEE
#
!"#$%&"'"()*+,*-(%."/0%)"* -(.01)2-%$*32+4(,-"$.*$%(.* 45"2"*+#"2%)-+(1*,+2*3-66"2* $+22-"1*")&*%2"*(+*$+(6"2* 10-)%3$"*-(*2"1-."()-%$*%2"%17*
#
8%(*#2+9-."*,%'-$:*5+01-(6* '+."$1
#
;+)*.-2"&)$:*("<)*)+*)2%(1#+2)* 5031=*30)*.+(>)*("".*+)5"2* %'"(-)-"1*%1*-)*1$+)1*-()+* "<-1)-(6*("-653+025++.1
!"#$%&'()*+,-&&'+./01.+#'10+)'+&2#.1#'3+45+'(607-(008+)'8+9-0:#8&8+1(&+0990-17'#1;+10+ 6&+$-&)1#:&+"#1(+1(&+(07.#'3+1;90/03;+10+*)%&+#1+"0-%+0'+)+$0'.1-)#'&8+.#1&+<+671+&*9/0;*&'1+ !"
-&=7#-&*&'1.+*)8&+1(#.+)+./0"+9-0$&..
52
Planning in London
!"#$%&$'())%*+$,"-#.+"$,"/$+(0&1 2(3/$())$4#5/)&$/60)#-/51 7-/$(*8$*//5&$*#,$4/,1 9:$;$<=>?7@A$B$7CCD=E7FGA$
FH>GE$@D$=AI@
9DJG>?>IK
<03*(0*,%(*0&* (-%*+455%2=* >4&*3%*?:'+5* (%&:2%*?+'&5=
#$%&'()*+',-(* ./-%$%.* /0$'&,* 1023425*
6%/0$'&,*$02%* .7%/'1'/*(0*842'%5* ()7%.*01* 5%$0,247-'/
<FL7
G7@A= 7IE$C7M>GN$G>?>IK
=A@=DC>@
<0$%.*4&5* .:7702(*102* %8%2)*.(4,%*01* +'1%
@-0:+5*AB@@* .(4&5425.*?%* '&*7+4/%*'&* (03&*/%&(2%* +0/4('0&.=
9:270.%; 5%.',&%5* .(:5%&(*-0$%.
!"#$%&"'()*%$"+%,+-%.',*',%/)#,%+,#0)+%$'%1234'5+%51#01)1$67
!"#$%&"'()*%$"+%,+-%.',*',%/)#,%+,#0)+%$'%1234'5+%51#01)1$67 !"#$"#%#&'()$*'&(+(&)$,-.(/(&#%'(0$1&'1%'.(2$"(34555()$*'&(6'(-$&%(%$(/()78'"&0/-'(./%/(0'1%"'9
www.planninginlondon.com
pil 139 October-December 2026
53
ANDY ROGERS: MORE MEANINGS OF WORDS
ROGERS
More meanings of words without knowledge Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? Job ch.38, v.2
In the last issue of this venerable publication I listed several vague terms - all often used by planners when making decisions - that are effectively meaningless when they don’t specify what precisely is meant in the context of the issue being determined. The most commonly used being: amenity, undesirable, beautiful, in keeping, dominant, and subservient. For example, in the case of Kensington & Chelsea RLBC and Mia Carla Ltd [1981], Donaldson LJ said: “It is too late to suggest the word ‘intensification’ should be deleted from the language of planners, but it has to be used with very considerable circumspection…it has to be clearly understood that ‘intensification’ that did not result in a material change of use was merely more of the same.” So simple intensification that did not alter the character of a use would not be taken as a material change and should therefore be allowed. This is one of the many poorly understood and badly used terms in planning. You cannot have ‘intensification’ if a use remains in the same Use Class unless it can be shown clearly that where you start from is materially different from where you are now. Other words may have an equally vague, or wider, meaning which can be critical when dealing with planning policy, especially when they are not defined in legislation (or maybe in the NPPF’s Glossary). Such terms include ‘curtilage’ - which I have dealt with extensively in previous columns and ‘dwelling’. Strangely, dwelling is a word that in planning terms has only been defined by the Courts but includes a wide range of circumstances where the definition varies according to other factors. Examples include bedsitters, flats, hostels, houses, tied cottages and holiday homes. Generally a dwellinghouse for planning purposes is a building or part of a building that comprises private residential accommodation as defined by Class C of the Use Classes Order. So not tents, motor homes or even, in most circumstances (ie when moving), caravans. Gravesham Borough Council v Secretary of State
www.planninginlondon.com
for the Environment and O’Brien (Michael W) (1984) is the planning case that defined what is required to make a building a dwellinghouse. The High Court held that a dwelling’s distinctive characteristic is the ability to provide the facilities needed for day-to-day private domestic existence. A building does not stop being a dwellinghouse if it is occupied only seasonally, intermittently or by different people. As often happens in planning law, the case did not hinge upon the meaning of dwelling, or the kind of residence, but on whether a small holiday chalet containing a living room, kitchen and bedroom (but no bathroom or internal WC) could benefit from permitted development rights. When the chalet was extended, the council had served an enforcement notice claiming that the holiday chalet was not a dwellinghouse, but the Courts determined that whether a building is a dwelling is a matter of fact when it provides day-to-day living accommodation. The corollary to this is that not every case has to be determined by only, or even primarily, having regard to the way the building is used, nor is the duration or frequency of the use relevant. If the building has acquired the characteristics of a dwelling, its description, in that case as a “weekend and holiday chalet” with a restriction on its use in the winter, could not deprive it of the facilities for
Andy Rogers is a planning consultant and former director in architects The Manser Practice
living that it had as its essential character and it was therefore a dwelling. Then there is the difficult and often contradictory question of whether a shipping container (which might of course be converted into a dwelling) is a building. As Mike Hyde of the Independent Consultants’ Network has pointed out: “Sticking a shipping container in a field or a garden” is not development as defined in the Planning Act - ie is not a “building operation” as listed in s55(1A) demolition, rebuilding or structural alterations except possibly “other operations” if carried out by a builder. Finally, GOV.UK has a list of vague or general words to avoid. Some examples are impact (unless talking about a collision!), key (unless it actually unlocks something), robust (unless talking about a sturdy object) and combat (unless military - use solve or fix or similar). More about this in a later column. n
pil 139 October-December 2026
55
HOW TO RE-LEGALISE HOUSING | NICHOLAS BOYS SMITH
How to re-legalise housing Nicholas Boys Smith argues that a better way to boost local prosperity and create homes could be just through the door if we dare to walk through it
Nicholas Boys Smith is the founder and chairman of Create Street and a visiting professor in Architecture at the University of Strathclyde
56
Planning in London
The government is doing an impressive job of making our dysfunctional planning system work better. But the central problem remains. England operates a high-cost, high-risk and abnormally discretionary system in which permission must normally be won case by case. It cannot be confidently predicted by following clear rules. Despite recent improvements, the Government is going to miss its 1.5 million new homes target as Angela Rayner now concedes. A high-cost, high-risk system with high barriers to entry will, no matter how much you ‘tilt the balance’, tend to result in fewer and larger developments from bigger developers. This is what has happened. We create fewer homes per household and rely more on large developers than almost any other western country. Only about 12 per cent of new British homes are developed by SMEs. In much of Europe this is over 50 per cent.1 The planning uncertainty, cost and delay fall disproportionately heavily on small and medium-sized builders. The answer is not a ‘bonfire of the regulations’ so that anyone, anywhere can do anything. It is to ‘move democracy forwards’ and create a simpler, more predictable system in which far more is settled before a homeowner or small builder spends tens of thousands of pounds seeking permission. Buried away in the National Planning Policy Framework is clear support for precisely such an approach. Policy DM9 states: ‘To provide certainty about the prospects of securing planning permission for specified forms of development, local planning authorities and Mayors are strongly encouraged to use Local Development Orders and Mayoral Development Orders, especially where this would support housing, regeneration, economic growth or environmental improvement. These orders should … set out precisely what development is permitted and how planning obligations will be secured.’2 This matters because Britain already possesses much of the legal machinery required to move from discretionary uncertainty towards clear, code-led pre-permission in ways that meet local consent. We are just not using it. We do not need another great Planning Act and we cannot afford the time that would take. We need to use the tools we already have. My recent Create Streets paper, The Camelot and the Croydon of street growing, examines what this might mean by comparing one remarkable American street with several London examples.3 Kennedy Street lies about five miles north-east of central Washington DC. A decade ago, it was a struggling main street of small houses, flats and shops, with boarded-up premises and weak investment. Washington’s zoning system already allowed redevelopment, but a 2016 rewrite increased the permitted floor-area ratio from 2.5 to 3.0, raised permitted plot coverage from 60 to 75 per cent and reduced parking requirements near some bus routes. A typical plot could consequently support
nine, ten or eleven flats rather than five, six or seven. The results are striking. Two-storey buildings have been replaced, plot by plot, with small apartment blocks. On a conservative count, Kennedy Street has gained 664 additional homes over roughly a decade. Crucially, this has happened without the state first having to build any new infrastructure. An old street is intensifying with new buildings. This is the great strength of pre-permission. The rules sit there waiting to be used. A landowner knows broadly what can be built. A small developer can understand and price the risk. Homes can emerge organically, plot by plot. But Kennedy Street is also a warning. Its zoning rules have plenty to say about height, floorspace, plot coverage and parking, but almost nothing to say about architecture. Many of the replacement buildings could be almost anywhere. The housing gain is undeniable. The placemaking gain is debatable. In some places that trade-off may be accepted. In many British streets I doubt that it would be.
Kennedy Street is growing up
Croydon shows why In 2019 Croydon Council adopted a Suburban Design Guide intended to make it easier to replace detached and semidetached suburban houses with blocks of flats. Economically, it worked. Centre for Cities found that small-site housebuilding doubled while the policy was operating. The relevant sites produced around 520 net additional homes a year, compared with 124 a year during the preceding five years. But the guide was remarkably permissive on architectural character. It allowed everything from ‘sympathetic and faithful’ design to ‘contemporary reinterpretation’ and ‘innovative and original’ architecture, without establishing an effective visual framework for Croydon’s Victorian and early twentieth-century suburban streets. The accompanying Croydon Design Guide was clearly written by someone who was, consciously or otherwise, contemptuous of the suburb’s principal aesthetic. None of the illustrations chosen for the three approaches supported was even remotely appropriate for Croydon. Historic England warned that some of the examples risked producing ‘uncharacteristic and unpopular development.’ They were right. The reaction that followed was politically consequential.
Exemplar used by Croydon Council for an appropriate intensification design approach. The voters did not agree.4
>>> Residents complained about over-intensification and erosion of local character. By the 2022 local elections both Labour and Conservative mayoral candidates felt obliged to strongly oppose the policy. For the Labour candidate this meant opposing own party’s policy. Tellingly both candidates did so on predominantly aesthetic grounds. The Conservative candidate won, against the London swing. Tellingly both candidates did so on predominantly aesthetic grounds. When the council subsequently revoked the Suburban Design Guide, it said that the change responded to concerns about ‘rapid over intensification and erosion of local character.’ A policy which is politically unsustainable is not a successful policy and, whatever your architectural tastes, the lesson is clear. A policy can increase housing output in the short term yet prove politically unsustainable if people dislike what it produces. And, as global evidence is increasingly showing, what people think about what new housing looks like is a critical predictor of their willingness to support or oppose it.5 Fortunately, other parts of London point towards a more durable model. In South Tottenham, Victorian terraces have been permitted to add up to one and a half storeys, subject to detailed rules requiring the extensions to harmonise with the existing buildings. More than 200 of roughly 1,000 eligible properties have used the rules. The policy remains in place. In Tower Hamlets, guidance supporting appropriately designed mansards was followed by a near sevenfold rise in applications and an increase in approval rates from 27 per cent to 93 per cent, helping create around 300 additional bedrooms. Again, the critical ingredient was not simply allowing more floorspace. It was setting out clearly what an acceptable addition looked like. The policy remains in place. Most interestingly, Redcliffe Road in Chelsea now has a Local Development Order for mansard extensions. The order effectiveAdding mansards in Tower Hamlets: the policy remains in place
The public choice was clear. Aesthetics matter.
ly pre-approves a tightly specified roof form, defining ridge heights, dormer positions, roof pitches, setbacks and architectural details. Within 18 months, five of the twelve eligible houses had started building mansards; a sixth has subsequently followed. Planning risk fell, but design control did not. The policy remains in place. It could, and should, be extended much more widely. The distinction matters because public preferences are not neutral. For our report, Deltapoll showed 2,020 UK adults two pairs of alternative designs for Kennedy Street. In both cases, the more context-sensitive, visually ordered proposal was preferred by 66 per cent of respondents. The existing alternatives attracted 25 and 28 per cent respectively. That does not mean that every street must be traditional, nor that every community will make the same choice. It does mean that design cannot sensibly be treated as an optional extra to be considered after questions of density and supply. In many established streets, aesthetics are part of the practical mechanism by which additional density becomes acceptable. England already has several ways to replace some discretionary risk with clear rules. Local Development Orders can grant planning permission for specified forms of development across defined areas. Neighbourhood Development Orders can permit development with community endorsement. This need not and should not amount to importing American zoning wholesale. We can have the best of both worlds. Councils should bring the democracy forward and decide more upfront in their local plan. They should identify where intensification is appropriate and agree short, visual and locally popular rules. They should be precise about height, form, frontage, roofscape and materials where these matter. They should then pre-approve compliant development. Kennedy Street shows the extraordinary power of pre-permission. Croydon shows the dangers of ignoring character. Tottenham, Tower Hamlets and Chelsea show that more homes and better places need not be opposites. The new NPPF has quietly opened the door. The interesting question for London is: will councils and the Mayor now choose to walk through it? n FOOTNOTES: 1 For fuller discussions of comparative planning risk see https://www.createstreets.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Smith_Pages-from2021_JPL_Occasional_Papers_13_Print-2.pdf 2 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework 3 https://www.createstreets.com/projects/the-camelot-and-the-croydon-ofstreet-growing 4 https://democracy.croydon.gov.uk/documents/s14561/Agenda%20 Item%2010%20-%20Appendix%201B%20%20SPD2%20Suburban%20Design%20Guide.pdf , p.32.
www.planninginlondon.com
pil 139 October-December 2026
57
HAS THE TIME COME FOR A NATIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY? | KATE BARKER
Has the time come for a National Spatial Strategy? Kate Barker is convinced that today’s challenges mean we need a national Spatial Strategy
Article based on a recent talk to the Cambridge University Land Society at Queens’ College
Dame Kate Barker DBE is author of the Barker Review of Housing Supply (2004) and a former member of the BoE Monetary Policy Committee
58
Planning in London
A National Spatial Strategy (NSS) for England is hardly a new idea, but the case for one is now more pressing. Multiple issues needing a overall spatial context (for example climate change, nature risks, where to site date centres, should HS2 be extended, how to manage the OxCam corridor). While the term carries the ring of socialist planning with its attendant inefficiencies; the counter case is that it is necessary in order that our major infrastructure spend is more efficient and intentional, and our environment better protected. There is a history of partial plans; going back to 1940 and the Barlow report aiming to distribute industrial population. Picking out examples: post-war the first wave of New Towns was intended to move people out of over-crowded urban environments and provide housing for local workforces. More recently, the 1997-2010 Labour government’s introduction of regional structures, and the ‘sustainable communities’ plan, brought planning at well above the local authority level. An illustration might be my own involvement in spatial planning which now spans 20 years. It has not proved a journey from A to B but rather a trip round in circles. There are many frustrations about how ideas and policies in housing and planning come and go, and significant among them is the ebb and flow of strategic planning. Back in the mid-2000s I was leading a government review of land-use planning. Several voices, including that of the TCPA, urged that this review should recommend a national spatial strategy bringing together the National Policy Statements (NSPs) for different forms of major infrastructure. However, it seemed likely that just getting the NSPs over the line into government policy would be hard enough (as indeed it was). To be realistic, reviews are always a somewhat constrained exercise between what’s possible today and some ideal long-term view. The proposed infrastructure planning changes proved controversial enough; such that many of the recommendations have been eroded. And progress towards better spatial planning was reversed by the sweeping away of regional planning after 2010 (without any reversion to the previous county structure plans). Subsequently in the late 2010s, I was a member of the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC), where arguably we didn’t do enough on spatial coordination. An exception was the NIC report on the OxCam arc which called for all elements on infrastructure and housing to be coordinated. Notably the Government’s response to the final report (in 2018) failed to join all the spatial dots as it led only on transport and digital for economic infrastructure (not mentioning energy or water). Then for a short period (2018-2020) I was a member of an organisation which itself proved rather short-lived – the
Geospatial Commission (GC). Among other projects, the GC produced a report about land use, partly prompted by a question I asked. How should a local authority, faced with a solar farm application on Grade 3a agricultural land, think about striking the balance between food and energy? Did they need an overall context to guide their decision? The recommendations from this report, in 2022, included a proposal for a Land Use Analysis taskforce to create cross-departmental spatial analysis with a standard taxonomy for Land Use data. Despite this background of more or less false starts, it is possible to be optimistic about a NSS for England. My contention is that a number of policy strands and debates suggest a recognition of the need for a NSS. The first of these is the work of the New Towns Taskforce in 2024/25, where I was Deputy Chair. It is a daunting prospect to look at a map of England and consider how to decide where best to put a new town. We started from a detailed mapping of land characteristics, such as flood risk, agricultural quality, protective designations, distance from transport links, etc. that has been developed in MHCLG. I understand this is also the work used by the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (NISTA) in their ALIGN project. This tool seeks to assess the infrastructure needs of different areas, and where interventions would best add to growth. While this data-driven approach is helpful, letting the past and present data speak is not a sufficient guide to placing major new developments with buildouts of up to 30 years. Additionally, for this ‘first wave’ of new towns (I hope there may be work on successive waves) there was a focus on identifying sites offering the chance of ‘spades in the ground’ by the end of the Parliament. So we turned primarily to a call for evidence. But that doesn’t mean we abandoned the data – some of it was needed for obvious physical geography reasons, others for what it suggested about short-term pressures and long-term potential. There is however unlikely to be a perfect method to identify the right places for the next 30 years and beyond, as the experience from some of the post-war towns suggests. Our discussions could have benefited from a NSS. As might be expected, we sought to utilise information from DfT about existing transport links and capacity (in some cases on the cost of capacity improvement). Given more time, it would have been even better to have commissioned full economic insights on potential outcomes from joint housing and transport projects. Some of the sites eventually selected aimed to make better use of existing rail infrastructure: Worcester Parkway, Tempsford (still just a potential link) and Crews Hill (where the station
requires considerable improvement). However, while we talked with DfT, and also with those engaged in developing the industrial strategy, it was unclear how, or by whom, these strands of activity would be brought together. And we encountered weaknesses from past decisions. It was discouraging, given the OxCam corridor had been under consideration (albeit in an on-off fashion) for at least a decade, that neither the constraints on energy around the Oxford end of the corridor, nor the water issues around Cambridge had been effectively addressed. There are now firm plans for a fen reservoir, but arguably this is coming along rather late. At present, Industrial strategy (IS) also lacks a consistent or adequate spatial approach. Since 2017, there have been three white papers on IS (if the levelling-up White Paper can be counted). This is undesirable in itself, but they have also been weak on spatial elements as none started from a spatial consideration of how the industrial plans might fit together. The short-lived nature of the plans so far clearly makes it impossible to evaluate them with regard to their spatial impacts. However, in the latest strategy some of the sectors identified (such as clean energy, or defence), have existing geographic clusters and could form a building block for a NSS. In March 2026 Defra published its Land Use Framework (LUF), which aims to show how land can be used more effectively. This is an ambitious document which sets out clearly the challenges we face at present around land use, including of course those created by climate change, and the need to tackle England’s nature depletion. It provides much information on land use today, and sets an aim of developing better agricultural land classification. However there is no clear spatial strategy, nor does it give guidance to local authorities balancing different constraints. Indeed, it explicitly states that the framework will not be a material consideration in development plans or planning application decisions. The LUF brings value in discussing how, with the appropriate reallocation and intelligent multifunctional use, we could achieve all our relevant goals with the land we have (though it might be noted that it would have been rather uncomfortable to have reached the opposite conclusion). And quite chunky reallocations in purpose are included, for example 9% of the present agricultural area shifting towards climate and nature benefits. The last recent development is the shake-up of local government, moving to establish strategic authorities, each covering several local authority areas. Vital to the argument about a NSS, these authorities are tasked with developing spatial development strategies (SDS) which enable consideration of housing development, infrastructure and environmental priorities on a wider area. The aim is to provide a better and more appropriate framework for local plans. The existence of Mayoral authorities in some places, but not others, makes this inevitably a somewhat messy exercise. There is quite a lot of support in England for the principle of a NSS. This is partly due to frustrations about the clear mismatches which emerge between infrastructure provision and plans for economic and housing development. In addition, this summer has made even more urgent the need to manage land better given the changing climate and brought into sharp focus the pressing need to improve our management of nature. Arguably the government initiatives described above are already producing
www.planninginlondon.com
much of the thinking and data that would be needed to form a NSS. But there is no real sign of intention to go further, and the LUF’s impact is weakened by its lack of traction over policies in other departments. There are certainly reasons why politicians might hesitate. One is the complexity of such a change; though the work underlying the initiatives already described adds up to a strong foundation. A NSS would also force possibly unwelcome clarity about which decisions are taken at which level of government, as well as indicating choices on why one place is selected rather than another. It also sits uneasily with the short-term nature of our politics. Ministers seem to want new plans and initiatives; ABOVE: too often ‘change for changes sake’. Of course, a NSS would have The Barker Review of to have intentional flexibility, by which I mean adapting plans Housing Supply because of new information or events. Clearly if we had formed a NSS in 2015, ahead of Brexit, Covid, Ukraine, Trump and AI developments it might look pretty stale today; but as a base to develop from it would still have been invaluable. Against this, England is a small country with a relatively high population density and a need to spend very wisely which makes a NSS desirable. There are already positive developments which could be used as building blocks for an NSS, if less sign of the necessary willingness for government departments to coordinate. At first sight this might seem to conflict with the Burnham agenda, with the push for devolution rather than top-down policy. However, not all decisions can be taken at sub-national levels and mayoral authorities will be best supported by a national context for major infrastructure. And this approach fits with the call for government departments to work more closely together. It is still some way from the present building blocks to the final product. Decisions are needed about what the NSS should contain, and here examples from abroad (perhaps particularly the Netherlands) will help. Our devolved geography will probably always be messy, but the new strategic authorities will provide good foundations. At an early stage consideration is needed about the metrics and data which will guide decisions and enable judgement about the success of the new structures. In sum, I am convinced that today’s challenges mean we need a national Spatial Strategy that gives a big picture context to decisions about infrastructure and protection of the environment. Recent policy developments are starting England on this journey, but it will need determination and political collaboration to get us to the destination. n >>>
pil 139 October-December 2026
59
JLL LIVING ROUNDUP REPORT | KARL TOMUSK AND MARCUS DIXON
Rental demand accelerates as mortgage costs bite plus the untapped opportunity in retirement housing Karl Tomusk Associate, EMEA Living Research & Strategy and Marcus Dixon Director of UK Residential Research at JLL have published their latest UK Living Roundup report
Karl Tomusk Associate, EMEA Living Research & Strategy and Marcus Dixon Director of UK Residential Research
60
Planning in London
2026 marks the 30th anniversary of the buy-to-let mortgage, with changes to borrowing rules that opened the door to a period of extraordinary growth for the private rented sector. Since 1996, the number of households renting privately across England has risen by more than 150 per cent, compared to just 14 per cent across other tenures—a remarkable transformation in Britain's housing landscape. Putting that into numbers, that's the equivalent of an additional 277 privately rented homes per day over the last thirty years – higher than the 258 owner-occupied homes added over the same period and the 20 homes per day lost from the social housing sector. While the popularity of buy-to-let amongst smaller investors has waned in recent years as costs have risen, reliefs have been withdrawn and government appetites have changed, it has played a vital role in the tenure shift we've seen over recent decades. Individual investors are still buying; there are just fewer of them. In the second quarter 8 per cent of gross mortgage advances were for buy-to-let loans. This equates to lending of £12.4 billion so far this year, compared with £22.2 billion a decade ago when up to a fifth of total lending was for buy-tolet. Build-to-rent has been fundamental in filling that gap, with £3 billion invested so far this year, up from less than a billion in the first half of 2016. A decade ago, investment in build-to-rent was just 4 per cent of total buy-to-let lending. Fast forward to the first half of 2026 and build-to-rent investment was equivalent to almost a quarter (24 per cent) of buy-to-let lending, demonstrating the importance of the institutional investor in providing new rental
stock into what remains an undersupplied market. This is evident too when we look at activity across the London new homes market. Analysis from Molior London suggests fewer than 900 new homes were bought by individuals in Q2 compared with more than double the number of sales to companies. Build-to-rent sales in H1 accounted for 41 per cent of deals, up from 30 per cent five years ago and just over a fifth back in 2016.
Rental demand accelerates as mortgage costs bite For anyone watching the housing market, the divergence between the rental and sales markets has become impossible to ignore. With swaps and mortgage rates remaining elevated the cost of mortgage is rising. Moneyfacts figures show average rates on two-year fixes at 5.77 per cent, the highest since May, and five-year fixed rates reaching 5.83 per cent, a level not seen since November 2023. With fewer able or willing to buy, demand for rental properties is outpacing sales, with the RICS monthly survey reporting eight consecutive months of growth in tenant demand, whereas new buyer enquiries have been in negative territory every month bar one since the end of 2024. Average rents across the UK rose by 3.8 per cent in the twelve months to August, the highest annual increase so far this year. All regional markets except the South East saw rents rise at above-inflation rates, with the North East and North West both recording the highest annual increase at 5.8 per cent. But in the sales market, just two regions (North East and North West) saw above-inflation increases. Nationally, prices rose 1.4
Source: RICS
Source: Source: EAC, English Housing Survey, JLL, ABI, PPI
per cent, with London and the South West both seeing price falls of -3.3 per cent and -0.2 per cent respectively. Higher mortgage costs mean that in more expensive markets the difference in cost between buying and renting a home is increasing. In London, where almost a third of homes are rented privately, it would cost on average 9 per cent more to buy a home rather than rent, based on average values. This compares with the period pre-2022 when buying a home with a 75 per cent loan-to-value mortgage was broadly the same cost as renting. That's the monthly cost. But the barrier isn't only the mortgage payment. The average deposit for those looking to put down 25 per cent would be almost £139,000, the equivalent of saving more than five years' rent. Even at a 10 per cent deposit, prospective buyers would need to save the equivalent of two years' rent. While some buyers could in theory bridge the monthly cost gap, the ability to save a deposit remains the more significant barrier.
The untapped opportunity in retirement housing But perhaps the most striking opportunity for private rental growth lies in a market that's been largely overlooked. Our recently released report on UK seniors housing highlights a considerable gap in the provision for renters – and an opportunity for the private rented sector to expand into a market that's been dominated by social housing and to a lesser extent owner-occupation. Social renting accounts for close to three out of every four units in the seniors housing sector. The provision rate of owneroccupied and privately rented homes is just 3 per cent, and
www.planninginlondon.com
they're concentrated in wealthier areas. But whereas 19 per cent of all housing is privately rented, in the seniors housing market it’s just half a per cent. Although it's a small part of the market, it is an area of growth. The number of units in schemes with market rent or ownership as a main tenure has grown 58 per cent over the last twenty years – well above the overall rate of growth in the sector – accounting for just over half of new schemes delivered in that time. That rise has been driven by growing occupier demand: more people wanting to rent for the speed and convenience it offers, coupled with a growing proportion of older people renting before entering the seniors housing sector. At the same time, lower house price growth in recent years means there's less fear of missing out on substantial equity gains from owning for as long as possible. All of which points to an opportunity. As the population ages and preferences shift, the privately rented retirement sector looks set to be one of the most compelling sectors of the housing market in the years ahead.
SEE: https://www.jll.com/en-uk/insights/uk-living-roundup-series
pil 139 October-December 2026
61
PLANNING DATA | ZIAD NASR
From planning data to property decisions Ziad Nasr explains what public data can tell us about a London address, and what it cannot
Ziad Nasr is the founder of MyPropertyScan.com
62
Planning in London
A buyer can leave a London viewing knowing where the sofa will go and very little about what lies beneath the building. That is not necessarily carelessness. A viewing makes some things easy to judge and leaves others almost invisible. Flood exposure, ground conditions, the terms of a lease and the scope for altering a building need a different kind of attention. Public records can help bring those questions forward, before an offer is made and while there is still time to decide what deserves closer investigation. But making information easier to find also creates a responsibility to explain what it cannot establish. One address, several different stories Useful starting points already exist in the Environment Agency’s flood service, the energy performance certificate register and HM Land Registry’s property records. Geological information and heritage designations add further layers. These sources were created for different purposes; assembling them does not automatically produce a coherent account of a home. [1–6] Take a previous sale price. It records a transaction at a particular time, not what the property should be worth today. HM Land Registry’s Price Paid Data has exclusions and registration delays. A missing sale is therefore not, on its own, evidence of something unusual. Equally, a freehold or leasehold label in that dataset does not explain the obligations in a lease. [4] An EPC needs its date read alongside its rating. A certificate can remain valid for ten years, so a buyer should ask whether the recorded assessment still reflects the property. Has the heating changed? Has insulation been added? The record is useful precisely because it gives those enquiries a starting point. [3] London’s risks do not follow the river Flooding is a good example of the gap between a familiar mental picture and a useful investigation. Distance from the Thames is not a sufficient test. Surface water flooding concerns rainfall that cannot drain away or soak into the ground quickly enough, and can matter well away from a river. [1,7] Yet a coloured patch on a flood map is not a prediction that water will enter a particular home. The Environment Agency explicitly says its long-term flood service describes an area’s risk, not the likelihood of an individual property flooding. The distinction belongs beside the result, where a reader will see it, rather than buried in a disclaimer. [1] Ground conditions require similar care. London Clay can shrink and swell as its moisture content changes. The British Geological Survey describes how vegetation, drainage and foundations affect the potential for damage. A map showing susceptible ground is a reason to investigate; it is not evidence that a particular house is subsiding. That still requires assessment of the building and its circumstances. [2]
Heritage information introduces a different kind of consideration. A conservation area is not a defect, and listing is not a warning to walk away. They may protect much of what attracts someone to a street or building. They can, however, affect proposed alterations. A buyer planning new windows or an extension needs to establish which permissions apply before treating that work as straightforward. [6]
The difficulty hidden inside an address There is also a basic problem in bringing records together: are they describing the same thing? A building, a flat within it, a legal title and an area of mapped ground are not interchangeable. Land Registry’s transaction data distinguishes building and flat identifiers and acknowledges inconsistencies in addresses collected over time. Matching records needs more care than finding a familiar postcode. [4,5] A clear display should say whether a finding relates to the individual dwelling, the building or the surrounding area. It should show the source and date, and make uncertain matches visible. An old record should not quietly become a statement about present conditions simply because it appears in a newly generated report. Missing information deserves equal prominence. “No record found” may mean that a source has incomplete coverage, that the address did not match, or that the relevant information sits elsewhere. It should not be translated into a reassuring green tick. [4] A better brief for the professionals Consider a hypothetical buyer looking at a lower-groundfloor flat. An initial search flags surface water exposure in the surrounding area, finds an older EPC and identifies a conservation area. None of this tells the buyer whether to proceed. It does help shape the next conversation. The buyer can ask about previous water ingress, seek advice on drainage and check insurance terms for the actual property. The surveyor can be given a specific concern to investigate. The energy assessment can be compared with the current heating and insulation, while any intended alterations can be discussed with an architect or the local planning authority. [1,3,6,7] The legal investigation still belongs with the solicitor or conveyancer. A public-data summary cannot establish the full position on title, lease obligations or the documents relevant to the purchase. It can, however, help the buyer explain what they need clarified, rather than asking a vague question about whether everything looks all right. [5,8] This is where an early screening tool should earn its place: by producing a useful brief for further investigation. It should leave room for a professional to explain that an apparent concern is manageable, irrelevant to that dwelling, or more serious
than the initial information suggests.
The temptation of a single score Once several datasets appear on one screen, there is an obvious temptation to combine them into a number. It is convenient, easy to compare and easy to misunderstand. What would an overall score actually mean? Better energy performance cannot cancel out an unresolved flood concern. Conservation status may be an attraction to one buyer and a constraint on another’s plans. Averaging these features risks hiding the issue that matters most to the person making the decision. I would rather see a short explanation of the material findings, the gaps and the next sensible enquiries. Where a score is used, its purpose, weighting and limitations should be available for scrutiny. The reader should still be able to reach the underlying evidence. For the planning profession, there is a useful opportunity here. Better access to records could help residents understand why a constraint exists and discuss a proposal before paying to develop an unsuitable design. It could also make the reasoning behind planning decisions more accessible to people who do not read policy documents for a living. That benefit depends on interpretation as much as access. Public data cannot remove the judgement involved in buying, adapting or caring for a building. It can make that judgement better informed, and bring the right people into the conversation earlier. A buyer who leaves with three well-founded questions may be better served than one who leaves with a score of 82. n
4. HM Land Registry. How to access HM Land Registry Price Paid Data 5. HM Land Registry. Search for land and property information 6. Historic England. What Permission Might I Need to Make Changes to My Older Home? 7. Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Flood risk and coastal change 8. GOV.UK. Selling a home: Transferring ownership (conveyancing)
Ziad Nasr is the founder of MyPropertyScan.com, a UK property data tool that brings together public records to help buyers identify questions worth investigating before making an offer. Sources Official reference pages checked on 28 September 2026. The flat example is hypothetical, not a reported case study. 1. Environment Agency / GOV.UK. Check the long term flood risk for an area in England 2. British Geological Survey. Swelling and shrinking soils 3. GOV.UK. Selling a home: Energy Performance Certificates
www.planninginlondon.com
pil 139 October-December 2026
63
THE END OF BRIEFING PANELS? | OWEN WARD
The end of briefing panels? The new scheme of delegation will see the end of or at least substantially frustrate various forms of ‘briefing panels’, argues Owen Ward
Owen Ward MSc IHBC is chair of the Bloomsbury CAAC and director of Ward Conservation & Design
64
Planning in London
From November 2026, a new scheme of delegation will take effect which will block most minor planning applications from ever reaching full planning committee. MHCLG explains that these reforms are intended to ensure ‘greater clarity and consistency about the role of planning committees in planning decision making’, and that ‘[planning] committees should focus on the key proposals that matter to an area, enabling other, often more minor and technical, decisions to be made by planning officers.’ In particular, this will see the end of or at least substantially frustrate the various forms of ‘briefing panels’ set up across the country, which allow some degree of councillor involvement on decisions usually taken through delegated powers. These panels could previously take decisions themselves or direct them to be made by planning committee, effectively overruling officers. Under the new scheme of delegation, the Chief Planning Officer (or similarly senior officer role) will retain the final decision on whether non-major applications can be referred to committee, while several types of minor applications (such as householder applications) are entirely blocked from referral. From November, whether minor applications can reach committee will become mostly a technocratic rather than a democratic decision. However, the new scheme of delegation does not entirely preclude councillor involvement in the referral process for those applications not wholly blocked from reaching committee, albeit with no powers to actually overrule officers, and legal opinions published online suggest that existing briefing panels could be adapted to comply with the new scheme of delegation1. Indeed, the government’s guidance on the topic does suggest a triage system for such referrals. The question for each local authority is whether they wish to retain or implement such triage systems, the extent of councillor involvement in these systems, and the appetite of the Chief Planning Officer to overrule councillor concerns in the event of any conflicts. Camden In Camden, under the current scheme any planning application whatsoever can potentially reach the full planning committee, to be determined by councillors rather than by planning officers. This is mediated by the Members Briefing Panel (‘MBP’), a panel of three councillors which can decide to refer a planning application to full committee where there are outstanding objections to a proposal. The mere existence of the panel, and the bureaucratic overhead associated with referral to the panel, act as a key check to the decision-making powers of planning officers. It prevents or at least significantly discourages officers from simply ‘ignoring’ outstanding objections to a planning application, as failing to address these objections requires officers to write a lengthy report, await the decision of the panel, and potentially present
the application to full committee. This creates a strong incentive to resolve objectionable elements of a scheme through negotiation with the applicant and objectors. This power balance between the MBP and planning officers is not merely theoretical but has led to some notable bust-ups between councillors and officers. In 2021, senior members of the department engaged a QC to effectively strong-arm the MBP into withdrawing its objections to an application related to a major and controversial scheme in Swiss Cottage. While the MBP eventually backed down, it led to considerable local controversy, with MBP members complaining to the press about the conduct of the department. Certainly at the strategic level, the MBP appears to be considered an inconvenience to the planning department.
A Pretext for a Power Grab? Under the new scheme of delegation, the current MBP cannot continue to function in its current format. Any attempt by the MBP to refer an application to full committee directly would be ultra vires as the decision-making power to do this would be retained by the Chief Planning Officer. In response to this, the planning department promptly published proposed alterations to Camden’s constitution. These alterations were presented as being necessary to comply with the updated scheme of delegation. However, buried within the detail of appendices and through tactical omission of important information, the proposed constitutional alterations would go much further than what is strictly necessary to comply with the new regulations In particular: • The current Members Briefing Panel will cease to exist from November. The department did not propose any new form of triage system, nor even mention a triage system as being an option in its report, despite this being a recommendation of the new guidance. • Several applications which will remain eligible for committee referral under the new regulations would be blocked from reaching committee in Camden. These include listed building consents, works to protected trees, and advertisement consents. The planning department was also peculiarly hasty to have these alterations presented and approved at a full council meeting, failing to consult with or even present the alterations to the planning committee or MBP itself. This entirely precluded any discussion by the committee or MBP on the proposed changes, with the planning committee being presented these changes only after approved by the full council. As it stands, despite objections from councillors and particularly the MBP, the planners’ proposed alterations are now approved. The MBP will cease to exist from November, and only
major applications expressly reserved for full committee will ever reach committee. The Head of Development Management will retain the final decision on whether any other applications could reach committee, but no referral or triage system will exist except for applications voluntarily referred by officers themselves.
simply considered an inconvenience to the planning department? One can only assume that if member input was valued, that an option for a triage system would have been presented, and at the very least that the views of the planning committee and MBP itself would have been taken into account prior to the full council meeting.
Commentary In simple terms, it appears that the department is using the new scheme of delegation as a pretext to rid themselves of the MBP and any councillor involvement in decision-making whatsoever, save for those applications expressly reserved for full planning committee. Not only will this frustrate any councillor involvement in decision-making, but community and amenity groups will be excluded from any meaningful involvement during consultation which was previously mediated by the MBP and local councillors. This is certainly a win for ‘efficiency’ and for the department’s own control over the consent process, but it is seriously questionable whether the (already variable) quality and consistency of decision-making at delegated level can be maintained under the new arrangement. Particularly in Camden where development pressures are high, councillors, local groups, and community members act as an important check to minor but potentially harmful applications being rubber-stamped. Any real incentive to resolve objections to such applications is now entirely removed, and one can only assume that this creates the ideal environment for over-stretched officers to sacrifice quality for quantity of decisions. The general conduct of the department in having these reforms approved also raises further questions about the apparent rift between members and senior planning officers in Camden. Are members, and particularly the planning committee,
Conclusion The reforms to the national scheme of delegation are very much in the spirit of the Starmer government’s piecemeal and arguably counterproductive reforms to planning. Of course, full planning committees will now run more efficiently, slightly easing the path of major developments through the consent process, but it is highly doubtful whether this will have any meaningful effect in enabling or encouraging development given current economic conditions. On the other hand, the cost to local democracy and the quality of delegated decisions will not be insignificant, and in the case of Camden will certainly be detrimental. Given the new PM’s apparent support of local communities and general focus on infrastructure and planning, one wonders whether the national scheme may be subject to further alterations in the coming years. As such, this may only be a shortterm issue, but whether the political will exists to reinstate the MBP in Camden is an open question. For other London councils, and councils across the country, their response to the new scheme of delegation will be coloured by the pre-existing power balance between officers and councillors, and the extent to which community and local involvement is valued in the decision-making process. n
Planning in London
1 https://www.39essex.com/our-thinking/insights/roles-for-members-in-thenew-delegated-arrangements-for-planning-decisions/
65
BOOKS
Royal Festival Hall A Living Icon Royal Festival Hall A Living Icon Edited by Eleanor Jolliffe and Sandy Rattray Photography by Edmund Sumner Foreword by Dan Cruickshank
UK £39.95
66
Planning in London
The Royal Festival Hall (RFH) - an important example of modernism in architecture and one of London's best-loved buildings - was built as a beacon of hope and renewal after the Second World War, and quickly became popular. In this new book, a selection of contributors - architects, technicians, musicians, historians and cultural programmers tell the varied stories of the building and the people who use it. The book is illustrated with photography specially commissioned from the renowned architectural photographer Edmund Sumner, and contains 21 written contributions on different aspects of the RFH, from its history as a piece of architecture to the story of the famous organ, and from the approach to literature and spoken word to the life of the production team. The building's emergence as a destination for all, whether to enjoy a performance by a world-famous symphony orchestra, a dance class, a poetry reading or just a cup of coffee, is considered in the context of the intentions of its original planners and those who have led, maintained and refurbished it since. This book offers an invaluable record of the history of this celebrated building in the first 75 years of its life, and looks to its future as a centre of cultural programming - both weathering and shaping change - for many more decades to come. • Published to coincide with the 75th anniversary celebrations of the Royal Festival Hall • Written by architects, musicians and technicians who have been closesly involved with the building and its renovation • A fascinating and thought-provoking book for anyone interested in the development of London's cultural life.
Excerpts from Dan Cruickshank’s foreword On the Social Intent: Cruickshank describes the original 1951 Hall as: "a tangible expression of a burning desire to create a better society after the trauma of war." The Festival of Britain symbol On Democratic Architecture: by Abram Games. He emphasizes how the build- The RFH is the only surviving ing rejected traditional, hierar- structure from the festival
chical design norms: Cruickshank highlights that the architecture was explicitly conceived “not for the privileged few, but for everyone.” He points out that the absence of segregated entrances, tiered bars, or class-divided seating reflected a radical post-war egalitarian philosophy. On Its Place in Post-War Recovery: He frames the building as a vital beacon of British Modernism, describing it as a monument built on optimism that served as a catalyst for urban and cultural regeneration on London's South Bank. n
Where We Live: The Fractured Art of British Housebuilding and How to Build the Homes We Need by Jonathan Glancey Britain is in the grip of a housing crisis. It has, in fact, been in the grip of a housing crisis since the Industrial Revolution, when the population soared and people crammed into towns and cities in search of work. What followed is a tale of suburbia, green belts and, since the 1980s, the increasingly common sight of mass-produced and near identical housing across the land.
Icon Books, Hardback £17
This book argues that British house building over the centuries has been an art. An art of which we can be proud and an art we can still learn from. The artistry involved includes not just the design and appearance, but the setting of homes into the fabric of urban and rural landscapes and the very fabric of people's lives. We need to get the art of new housing right before building ever more homes that, while considered a necessity, no one truly likes. Where We Live is at once a critical history of the art of British
housebuilding urban, suburban and rural, a study of where British housing has lost its way for the best part of a century, and a source of inspiration and hope for the future.
Where We Live is a commendably heartfelt book Yes, Glancey writes, things are bad, and they may have been thus for a while – but this isn’t a defeatist lament, because defeatism isn’t a responsible option. Beauty and utility are worth fighting for. We need to challenge the parallel failures of government and industry, banish the narrow fixation on costs and consultancies, and get back to some existential first principles: democracy, autonomy, decency, meaning. The renewal of British housing, in other words, will depend on whether we’re prepared to reassess not just where we live, but who and what we’re living for. –The Telegraph
Books received
The Religious Architecture Of Alvar, Aino And Elissa Aalto By Sofia Singler, Lund Humphries £55.00 Challenges previously held assumptions about Aalto’s engagement with religion, reproducing previously unpublished drawings and photographs from the Aalto Foundation's archive.
www.planninginlondon.com
Sustainable Approaches to Urban Transport Edited By Dinesh Mohan, Geetam Tiwari, Routledge £43.19
Why Architects Matter: Evidencing and Communicating the Value of Architects by Flora Samuel, Routledge £43.53
Sustainable Approaches to Urban Transport brings together contributions from leading international experts in urban planning, transport, and governance who suggest changes to make our cities more sustainable in the face of climate change. All professionals working in transport and engineering and planning students will find an overview of a broad field in this interdisciplinary collection of essays.
Why Architects Matter straddles the spheres of ‘Practice Management and Law’, ‘History and Theory’, ‘Design’, ‘Housing’, ‘Sustainability’, ‘Health’, ‘Marketing’ and ‘Advice for Clients’, bringing them into an accessible whole. The book will therefore be of interest to professional architects, architecture students and anyone with an interest in our built environment and the role of professionals within it. n
pil 139 October-December 2026
67
68
Planning in London
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
pil 139 October-December 2026
69
>>>
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
London Borough of Harrow PO Box 37 Civic Centre Station Road Harrow HA1 2UY
Head of Major Initiatives, Strategic Planning & Transportation Jales Tippell jales.tippell@hillingdon.gov.uk 01895 250230
Head of Spatial Planning Randall Macdonald 020 8356 8051
020 8863 5611 www.harrow.gov.uk/planning
London Borough Of Hounslow
Director of Regeneration John Lumley john.lumley@hackney.gov.uk 020 8356 2138
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
Chief Executive Ms Kim Dero kim.dero@lbhf.gov.uk 020 8753 3000 Head of Planning Regeneration John Finlayson john.finlayson@lbhf.gov.uk 020 8753 6740 Head of Policy & Spatial Planning Pat Cox pat.cox@lbhf.gov.uk 020 8753 5773
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
70
Planning in London
The London Borough of Havering Town Hall Main Road Romford RM1 3BD 01708 433100 www.havering.gov.uk Chief Executive Andrew Blake-Herbert andrew.blakeherbert@havering.gov.uk 01708 432201
Head of Development Management Marilyn Smith marilyn.smith@hounslow.gov.uk 020 8583 4994 Head of Regeneration & Spatial Planning Ian Rae ian.rae@hounslow.gov.uk 020 8583 2561
Planning Control Manager Helen Oakerbee helen.oakerbee@havering.gov.uk 01708 432800 Planning and Building Control Simon Thelwell simon.thelwell@havering.gov.uk 01708 432685
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 Service Director of Planning & Development Karen Sullivan karen.sullivan@islington.gov.uk 020 7527 2949
London Borough of Haringey Alexandra House, Station Road, Wood Green, London, N22 7TY rob.krzyszowski@haringey.gov.uk Director of Planning & Building Standards
Team Leader for Planning & Projects Eshwyn Prabhu eshwin.prabhu@islington.gov.uk 020 7527 2450
catherine.smyth@haringey.gov.uk Head of Development Management & Enforcement bryce.tudball@haringey.gov.uk Head of Spatial Planning
020 8583 5555 www.hounslow.gov.uk/planning
Strategic Director of Housing , Planning & Communities Peter Matthew peter.matthew@hounslow.gov.uk
Development & Transport Planning Martyn Thomas martyn.thomas@havering.gov.uk 01708 432845
020 8921 6426 www.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/planning
Civic Centre Lampton Road Hounslow TW3 4DN
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
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
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
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
The London Borough Of Waltham Forest Town Hall London E17 4JF
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
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
pil 139 October-December 2026
>>>
71
>>> Mark Hunter
Chief Executive Stuart Love slove@westminster.gov.uk 020 7641 3091
mhunter@wandsworth.gov.uk 020 8871 8418 Head of Forward Planning and Transportation John Stone jstone@wandsworth.gov.uk 020 8871 6628
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 Kamal Chunchie Way, London E16 1ZE 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
China National Publications, Deloitte, Womble Bond Dickinson, 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, L B Islington, CBE, GL Hearn, Holistic Group, White Young Green, Dentons, i-Document Solutions, Trowers & Hamlins, 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, 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, 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, BWCP Architects, WSP Indigo, Slaughter and May, LSE library, British Land Company, Dentons, HTA Design, Howard Kennedy, ...
... 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. Bank transfer: HSBC 40-07-13 a/c 91551655 'Planning in London'. A subscription is a licence for 5 copies emailed in PDF format. Please supply up to 5 email addresses to planninginlondon@mac.com
72
Planning in London
I would like to subscribe from:
Go to planninginlondon.com > Subscribe and pay online with
last issue 138 July 2026 this issue 139 October 2026 next issue 140 January 2027 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: CAR PARKS TO COMMUNITIES
Car parks to communities Research just published by Lichfields asks: can retail parks help meet London's housing need?
The UK’s housing challenge has developed over the years into a widely acknowledged crisis, nowhere more so than in London, which is currently planning for around 558,000 new homes over the next 10 years of the draft London Plan (published July 2026) against a local housing need of 850,000 over the same period. With this in mind, out‑of‑centre retail parks represent one of the clearest and most immediate opportunities to pivot from low intensity land use, with areas predominantly occupied by car parks and single storey units, repurposed to residential led mixed-use communities. Over 2025 and 2026, Lichfields has undertaken an analysis of London’s retail parks to identify and define guiding principles for a design‑led approach, helping to deliver sustainable, mixed‑use neighbourhoods that can contribute meaningfully to London's housing needs while creating better places, stronger communities and enhanced local centres.
London retail parks could provide land for 11,200 new homes Nineteen retail parks across London could accommodate around 11,200 new homes as part of mixed-use redevelopment, according to research from planning and development consultancy Lichfields. The study, Car parks to communities, looked at 102 retail parks across 29 London boroughs, representing around 9.1 million sq ft of retail floorspace. It identified 19 sites across 13 boroughs with potential for further housing after screening for accessibility, planning commitments and policy protections, flood risk and proximity to local services. Redevelopment is already taking place on a number of sites. 29 of the 102 retail parks are undergoing residential-led redevelopment in one form or another and could deliver up to 16,800 homes. A further 28 developments on land next to retail parks are already delivering 17,500 homes. Together, around 34,000 homes >>>
>>>
www.planninginlondon.com
pil 139 October-December 2026
73
NXXX
>>> are currently being developed on or adjacent to retail park sites across London. James Singer, Associate Director at Lichfields and author of the research, said: “London needs more homes and some retail parks have clear potential to help provide them, particularly where large parts of a site are taken up by surface car parking or low-density development. “That doesn’t mean every retail park is suitable for housing. Many are trading well, and factors such as land value, existing tenants and lease structures can make redevelopment difficult. “In a lot of cases, the more realistic approach is to redevelop sites in stages, keeping successful retail and leisure uses while adding homes and improving the wider site. That can make better use of the land while retaining uses that continue to perform well.” The research comes as London looks for ways to increase housing supply under the draft London Plan, published in July. The plan makes provision for around 558,000 new homes over the next 10 years, against an identified local housing need of approximately 850,000. Existing and proposed London planning policy supports the redevelopment of low-density retail parks and car parks for housing where sites are suitable. However, viability, existing uses and the ownership and lease arrangements of individual parks will
74
Planning in London
have a major bearing on what can be delivered. Retail parks have remained relatively resilient compared with other parts of the retail market, while strong occupier demand and limited new supply can support high existing use values. Existing leases, ownership structures and redevelopment costs can make residential schemes difficult to bring forward. Vacancy across the retail parks analysed was around 15% at the time of the research, compared with an average of approximately 6% across the wider retail park market. The research found that some of this reflects sites already moving towards redevelopment, where tenancies have been allowed to lapse ahead of future plans. For sites with development potential, the study points to phased delivery as one way of retaining retail and leisure uses while introducing housing, community facilities, new streets and public space. It considers London examples including Hurlingham Waterfront in Fulham, Lewisham Retail Park and Southbury Leisure Park in Enfield. James added: “The opportunity is not just to increase the number of homes on these sites, but to turn places built around cars into neighbourhoods where people can live, shop and spend time. That means thinking carefully about the mix of uses, the quality of public space and how each site connects with the surrounding area.” n
Advice
www.planninginlondon.com
pil 139 October-December 2026
75
JOIN NOW FOR JUST £50 PER YEAR Under 30? Membership is FREE for 2 Years
CONNECTING PEOPLE WHO LOVE LONDON
Talks • Tours • Debates • Events • Socials
Explore London differently
Join important conversations
Meet people who care
Behind-the-scenes tours, walks and visits to places which are not usually open to the public.
Talks and debates on housing, transport, culture, the economy and the future of the city.
Architects, campaigners, historians, policymakers and curious Londoners in the same room.
Visit us: www.londonsociety.org.uk Founded in 1912, The London Society is one of the world’s oldest civic societies. We bring Londoners together to understand and celebrate the city’s rich heritage, engage in the issues shaping its future and champion a better London for everyone.
SCAN TO SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE WEEKLY NEWSLETTER: The London Society is a registered charity in England and Wales. Charity No. 206270