Pil102 july 2017 issu edition

MAGAZINE OF THE YEAR FINALIST International Building Press Awards 2016 WHAT’S DEMOCRACY GOT TO DO WITH IT? – Andy Rogers on page 29 SNAKE OIL OR SUBSTANCE? Neil Parkyn on page 34 Issue 102 July-September 2017

www.planninginlondon.com

PLANNING FOR SOMETHING PERMANENTLY TEMPORARY Robert Alvarez page 54

ONLY TAKING POLITICS OUT OF GRENFELL WILL SOLVE THE HOUSING CRISIS – Susan Emmett on page 10 Where now for high rise living? – leader page 5; The only way is up – Raconteur/NLA pages 12-13; Five-year land supply: clarity at last – Martha Grekos and Antonia Frangakis page 14; Beyond the election – Stephen Ashworth page 15; Housing provision and policy implications for a new government – Rory Bergin page 49; Delivering safe social housing – Jennifer Holgate page 27 THE ESSENTIAL GUIDE TO DEVELOPMENT IN THE CAPITAL

Please subscribe: page 80

Download the report here: https://www.raconteur.net/future-construction-2017

CONTENTS

page 5 LEADERS Where now for high rise living?

The conflict for boroughs of both regulating and delivering housing 8 THE ONLY WAY IS UP Graphic from Raconteur’s special report published in The Times on the ‘Future of Construction’, based on data from NLA OPINIONS 10 GRENFELL TOWER AND REGENERATION Only taking politics out of Grenfell will solve the housing crisis, Susan Emmett Only taking politics out of Grenfell will solve the housing crisis, Susan Emmett on page 10

11 MICRO-HOMES Space invaders: arrival of the micro-home, Nick Easen 13 TECHNOLOGY Technology really is changing the face of design and planning: Paul Finch 14 FIVE-YEAR LAND SUPPLY: CLARITY AT LAST Martha Grekos and Antonia Frangakis 15 POLITICS AND PLANNING Beyond the election: Stephen Ashworth

A PROFESSIONAL MANIFESTO John Assael on page 18

16 HOUSING AND POLITICS Duncan Bowie 18 A PROFESSIONAL MANIFESTO John Assael 24 BASEMENTS Frocks and Ferraris – the return of mega-basements Christine Hereward 26 THE GREEN BELT ISN’T WORKING Peter Murray 27 DELIVERING SAFE SOCIAL HOUSING Jennifer Holgate 29 ANDY ROGERS What’s democracy got to do with it?

Frocks and Ferraris – the return of mega-basements Christine Hereward on page 24

The cover cartoon by Hellman is from the Architects’ Journal of 18th April 1979

30 PLANNING PERFORMANCE Nearly everything up by four per cent!

34 NEIL PARKYN Snake Oil or substance?

Continues next page >>>

Issue 102 July-September 2017

3

CONTENTS CONTINUED

>>>

35 LETTERS The noble art of presentation: Peter Heath

62 THE ROLE OF LANDSCAPE IN CITY MAKING John Letherland

37 ¡PILLO! 39 CLIPBOARD

70 THE OVER-ALLOCATION OF SITES FOR HOUSING Alice Roberts and Neil Sinden

42 LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM Housing provision and policy implications for a new government

72 INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION – BETTER PLANNING GUIDANCE FOR BUSINESS Amy Gilham

49 HOUSING PROVISION AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS FOR A NEW GOVERNMENT Rory Bergin

75 GROWING YOUR OWN PLANNERS Andrew Close

54 PLANNING FOR SOMETHING PERMANENTLY TEMPORARY Robert Alvarez

77 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REFERENCE GUIDE Contacts in all London boroughs 80 SUBSCRIPTION FORM

57 DISTRICT ENERGY – DELIVERING LOW CARBON AND LOWER FUEL BILLS Dominic Barton 60 FINANCING AND DELIVERING LARGE SCALE COMMUNITIES Matthew Waters

ISSN 1366-9672 (PRINT) ISSN 2053-4124 (DIGITAL) Issue 102 July-September 2017

Publishing Editors: Brian Waters, Paul Finch and Lee Mallett editor@planninginlondon.com, planninginlondon@mac.com Editorial, subscriptions and advertising: Tel: 020 8948 2387/ 07957871477 Email: planninginlondon@mac.com Contents ©Land Research Unit Ltd or as stated Available only on subscription: £99 pa

81 SHAPING LONDON – Sir Terry Farrell with Maysa Phares Making cities work as 24-hour places to live 83 ADVICE Consultants and services

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.

Design Council CABE City of London Law Society Confederation for British Industry DCLG 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

www.planninginlondon.com The London Planning and Development Forum (LPDF) The LPDF 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. It is a sounding board for the development of planning policy in the capital, used by both the public and private sector.

Agendas and minutes are at planninginlondon.com.

To attend please advise hon. secretary Drummond Robson: robplan@btconnect.com The LPDF is administered by: Honorary Secretary: Drummond Robson MRTPI,

4

Planning in London

41 Fitzjohn Avenue, Barnet, Herts EN5 2HN Tel: 0208 449 3113 Fax: 0208 440 2015: robplan@btconnect.com Chairman: Brian Waters MA DipArch (Cantab) DipTP RIBA MRTPI ACArch P.ACA FRSA Principal: The Boisot Waters Cohen Partnership brian@bwcp.co.uk Honorary Treasurer: Alastair Gaskin alastair.gaskin@btinternet.com Member bodies Association of Consultant Architects Association of London Borough Planning Officers/Planning Officers’ Society London Councils British Property Federation

THE LP&DF IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE LONDON SOCIETY

LEADERS

Where now for high rise living?

Loss of project oversight by one architect and of borough architects’ departments have led to a fragmentation of responsibilities and dominance of budget and programme led by project managers and builders

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

The implications for planning, management, procurement and design of high-rise residential buildings of the Grenfell tower tragedy are manifest. It is not easy to focus on the practical and pragmatic issues in its aftermath.

Susan Emmett, late of Savills Research and now with Policy Exchange, argues on page 10 for the need to take the politics out of housing; the graphic spread on pages 8-9 ‘The only way is up’ prepared by Raconteur using NLA data shows the extent to which tall, mainly residential towers are in London’s development pipeline.

On page 16 Duncan Bowie calls for a fundamental rethink of housing policy although at the London Planning and Development Forum (see page 42) he compliments Conservative manifesto policies. These include reforms to capture land value uplift from development and to the compulsory purchase process to make it easier for councils to use. Jennifer Holgate of Bond Dickinson writes about this on page 27. The Tory manifesto also supports high-quality, high density housing "like mansion blocks, mews houses and terraced streets" – reflecting the promotion of low-rise high-density housing by architects since the 1960s. The manifesto also seeks to deliver the planning reforms in February’s relatively radical Housing White Paper including changes to the National Planning Policy Framework and targets delivering one million new homes by the end of 2020 and half a million more by the end of 2022.

We publish a professional manifesto with an article by John Assael on page 18 where he calls for ‘great design and better housing regardless of politics’.

The Construction Industry Council has pulled together its members to form a task force following the Grenfell disaster. Representing architectural practices, the Association of Consultant Architects puts the focus on the procurement process, roles and responsibilities in the construction industry.

They say: “While not being a specialist in any aspect of the construction of buildings, the architect is trained to understand the essentials of the functioning of buildings and to take a holistic view of both the building and the process of construction. We believe that this role is being undervalued and disrupted by a fragmentation of responsibility through changes to the process of procurement with the multiplicity of decision makers involved in this process.

The independent role, standing sufficiently outside of the commercial pressures on a project, which was traditionally vested in the profession of architecture has all but been dismembered in many instances, notably with much public procurement. It is not certain that such a continuity and breadth of involvement would ensure that a disaster would never happen, but we believe that it most certainly would substantially reduce the risk.

As publishers of forms of appointments and building contracts the ACA has a long and special interest in successful design, procurement and construction.

We have ‘brainstormed’ some suggested areas for investigation in the wake of the fire, and in the context of the current status of our industry. These are listed below.

Is the design and procurement of buildings in England and Wales currently working as it should? If not, how can it be improved to prevent future catastrophic failures?”

Paul Finch writing under the heading ‘Clarity of thought and purpose will be crucial for the Grenfell inquiry’ in Property Week of 7th July says: “As for the inquiry, the other broad question that >>>

Issue 102 July-September 2017

5

LEADERS

>>> one

hopes will be addressed (because it will be dealing with a particular instance of procurement and will need to put it into context), is the way that risk transfer, a polite term for passing the buck, has become endemic throughout construction. This is because it is part of the ideology of project management and the worst exponents of design-and-build. It is not the same thing as being riskaverse, although that is another congenital condition. So what happens if financial risk is at odds with fire safety?

This is going to be a rough ride”. n

Questions raised by the ACA In the particular case of Grenfelll Tower:• Was the building after regeneration compliant with the regulatory frameworks? If so are the current regulatory frameworks fit for purpose?

• If it was, how did the failure occur?

• If it was not compliant, how did the non-compliance happen?

POTENTIAL TOPICS FOR INVESTIGATION 1. The history, ownership by RBKC Council and social housing use of the building.

2. The building underwent a major Regeneration Project. Identify reasons for the project, social, economic and political context.

3. RBK&C Council does not have a Chief Architect, or an Architects Department. Was this a factor?

4. Who was the ‘Client’ on the project and were they competent to assume that role?

5. Planning Consent applied for in late 2012 and granted in January 2014.

6. Relationship between Planning and Building Acts, their separate and overlapping natures.

7. Appointment of professional teams and their roles and what forms of appointment were used?

Do they encourage teamwork or protectionism?

8. Was there a team leader and were they competent to fulfil that role?

9. Who was responsible for the overall design and specifications?

10. In selecting materials for inclusion in the building and with the increasing manufacture and use of new composite and combinations of materials are we satisfied as to their performance ‘promise’? Are they fit for the purpose to which they are applied? Is the testing of materials as good as it needs to be?

11. If the cladding solution selected was used

countrywide how did this get passed on? Through suppliers, trade contractors or commissioning clients?

12. Who was responsible for the overall design and construction programme. Was sufficient time allowed?

13. Were all aspects of the project that needed to be, addressed by an individual team member?

14. Continuity in team contributions. Were there critical gaps in expertise?

15. Was there any Cost-Benefit analysis during the design process?

16. When and by whom was the construction procurement decided? How was the decision made and was that the most appropriate process? What form of contract was used and was this most appropriate form of contract?

17. How was the contractor selected? What elements of the design (if any) were the responsibility the main or specialist contractors?

18. How were specialist designer/subcontractors selected?

19. Was anyone responsible for ensuring that the design intent was satisfied by specialist designers/contractors?

20. Was the project programme reasonable? Was sufficient time allowed for full design to progress in time for the construction programme?

21. Regulatory frameworks. Are they clear or are they overly complex?

22. Planning Acts.

23. Building Acts.

24. Fire Precautions Acts.

25. CDM and Health and Safety Law. 26. Environmental Health Acts.

27. Housing Acts.

28. Whilst innovation is essential for society to progress, are the Regulations sufficiently clear to

MAGAZINE OF THE YEAR (NON-WEEKLY) Sponsored by The Chartered Architects’ Company

6

Planning in London

permit innovation, without allowing innovation to go unchecked?

29. How are decisions on innovation made and authorised?

30. Should Full Plans Approval be secured before construction is commenced on site? (Used to be relevant in Scotland through the issue of a Warrant).

31. What role does the Fire Brigade play is design of tall buildings?

32. What is the current position on the issue of Fire Certificates?

33. Tenants were consulted in the design process.

Were their comments fully addressed?

34. Who was responsible for representing the interests of the tenants throughout the project?

35. What is the role of insurance on building projects and do insurance companies influence positively of negatively?

36. Post project completion, were tenants informed of safety requirements in their daily use of the building both common parts and their own occupancies.

37. Was the fire precautions regime in place and understood by the landlords and all tenants?

38. Was there regular testing of building services and installations?

39. Post completion, were there regular inspections by Landlords representatives?

40. Was there a regime in place for post completion defects, complaints and concerns?

41. Were there regular tests of fire detection and warning systems and evacuation tests?

The ACA represents Architects’ private practices in the UK.

Winner – New Civil Engineer Runners-up: The Architects’ Journal, Planning in London: “A must-read for all its specialist market”

LEADERS

The conflict for boroughs of both regulating and delivering housing Boroughs should police the provision of homes in their area and leave the delivery of mainstream social housing to more flexible, focused and competent bodies

One of the fundamental political and regulatory - ie governance - issues thrown up by the lives lost at Grenfell Tower is whether there is an inherent conflict of interest for a local authority in being an owner and a local regulator of housing provision.

Local authorities frequently complain about the activities of the private sector as ‘landlords’ and then themselves sustain physical conditions which they would otherwise abjure. Was Peter Rachman responsible for deaths in the run-down and rent-regulated properties he owned in Notting Hill? He did, it was alleged at the time, make life uncomfortable for many tenants.

In fact, it might be argued that the regulation of rents was one of the measures that made conditions so bad in Notting Hill that it became what it did - before a resurgent Bourgeois tribe of newly minted economic migrants reclaimed it for their own, forcing the residue of its less affluent residents into whatever public sector nooks and crannies could be found.

In the early 1980s, when London’s population hit a 100-year low, you could see the effect of controlled rents and municipal landlordeeism in every inner London borough. Much as you can today, only it was more extreme in terms of derelict and squatted council property and run down council-owned estates. This was a very poor legacy given the altruistic social Utopian ideals that generated the Welfare State and its ambition of Homes Fit For Heroes.

We could see Grenfell as a the end point to an era of two halves. The first of which was Socialist and drove the state’s role in provider of social housing for the part of society that needed better subsidised homes. We know where that ended up. Some good stories, some horror stories. The second half was the Conservative reassertion of private individualism seeking to reverse the all too tangible failures of the earlier era and liberate private economic endeavour. But without sufficiently modernising or sustaining our collective duty to help those most in need.

Somehow these trans-party characteristics came together in Grenfell with horrible effect.

Local authorities need to exercise their authority, otherwise things can fall apart. Rather than being ineffectual landlords, might they not be better policemen of other providers?

Ingrained, hard-to-shift poverty and disadvantage seem to remain rooted in place where positive change is not achieved. There are plenty of places in London like that, despite proximity to the heart of one of the world’s most successful cities. Somewhere in those places is usually a lot of council housing. There is also a political umbilical link in some boroughs between housing provision and perpetual power. That is not a healthy relationship, and it works both ways either side of the political spectrum.

Boroughs should police the provision of homes in their area and direct development to secure improvement. They might also make and manage emergency provision for those who need it most when life gets really difficult – but, they would perhaps perform a better role by making sure, first and foremost, that the homes on their patch were safe, as it is now pretty clear that lots of them aren’t, and leave the provision of mainstream social housing to more flexible, focused and competent bodies, like independent housing associations, or even perhaps the private sector. n Issue 102 July-September 2017

7

0

THE ONLY WAY IS UP

22 1

TALL BUILDINGS IN THE PIPELINE

BY BOROUGH

0

Enfield

TOTAL NUMBER OF BUILDINGS OVER 20 STOREYS IN THE PIPELINE, AND THOSE UNDER CONSTRUCTION IN MARCH

Harrow

0

5 0

0 Haringey

Total Barnet

Tall buildings remain a critical part of London’s development, creating crucial office and residential space in a city where space is in high demand. Some 26 structures 20 storeys or more were completed in the capital during 2016, more than four times the annual average over the past decade. With a further 455 towers in the pipeline, the city skyline will look dramatically different over the coming decades. This infographic looks at completions over the years and where newest skyscrapers will pop up.

Under construction

13

5

3

1

0 2 Camden

Islington

Brent 10

33

4 16 0

City of London

0

9

Hillingdon

2

0 1

Ealing

TALL BUILDINGS PIPELINE

City of Westminster

START AND ESTIMATED COMPLETION RATES

Hammersmith and Fulham

2

START RATE

0

0

Kensington and Chelsea

2004 2005

0

Hounslow

2006

24

2007

35

2008 2009 2010

7

2011 14

2012 2013

0

0

Wandsworth

2014 Richmond upon Thames

2015 2016 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Lambeth

50

COMPLETION RATE

2004

1

0

0

0

2005 2006

Merton

Kingston upon Thames

2007 2008 2009

1

2010 2011

455 TALL BUILDINGS OVER 20 STOREYS IN THE PIPELINE

2012

1

Sutton

2013 2014 2015

45

2016

63

256

91

2017 2018 2019 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Environmental impact assessment/pre-application

Permission granted

Application stage

Under construction

FROM: Raconteur’s special report published in The Times on the ‘Fu

You can find the full report here: https://www.raconteur.net/future 8

Planning in London

3 0

77

Redbridge

0

26

48

30%

53

buildings over 20 storeys were completed in 2016, compared with an average of six a year over the past decade

buildings over 20 storeys started construction in 2016, equal to almost one a week

of homes currently under construction in London are in tall buildings over 20 storeys

38 hectare footprint of buildings over 20 storeys in the pipeline, equivalent to more than 53 football pitches

0

Waltham Forest 17 31

4

25

Hackney

11

7 1 68

0

Havering

Barking and Dagenham

Newham

0

37 Tower Hamlets

0

7

0

Bexley

Southwark 9

Greenwich 14

2

Lewisham

0

0

21 Bromley

0 Croydon

TALLEST BUILDINGS UNDER CONSTRUCTION HEIGHT (m) NUMBER OF FLOORS COMPLETION

Two Fifty One

Keybridge House

Manhattan Loft Gardens

One Merchant Square

Baltimore Tower

One Blackfriars

One Nine Elms

Spire London

22 Bishopsgate

127

133

143

150

151

170

199

235

255

41

37

42

41

45

52

58

67

59

2017

2017

2018

2018

2017

2017

2018

2020

2019

Source: New London Architecture 2017

ture of Construction’, with kind consent.

e-construction-2017

RACONTEUR.NET © 2017 RACONTEUR MEDIA

Issue 102 July-September 2017

9

GRENFELL TOWER AND REGENERATION | SUSAN EMMETT

Only taking politics out of Grenfell will solve the housing crisis Residents must be at the heart of the regeneration process not an afterthought says Susan Emmett

This article first appeared in the Times Red Box email

Susan Emmett is head of housing and urban regeneration at Policy Exchange

10

Planning in London

The blaze that destroyed Grenfell Tower has been extinguished but the anger and sense of injustice felt by its residents, neighbours and communities across the country burns on.

The criminal investigation into the specifics that led to the tragic deaths of at least 79 people has started. A public inquiry has been announced although we have yet to hear what the terms of reference of the inquiry.

It’s clear that the inquiry must be swift, Grenfell residents thoroughly consulted and that it should extend beyond the boundaries of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea to include other boroughs such as Camden that used similar flammable materials on their buildings. The findings must result in permanent changes.

None of this will be easy but we must do more. There are wider issues that neither the criminal investigation nor the public inquiry will address. We owe it to all those living in inadequate homes to go further.

The great wave of house building in the 60s and 70s, delivered a quantum of new homes not seen since, particularly of social housing. But half a century later we have another housing crisis. Today, we face the dual challenge of addressing the consequences of ageing council housing stock and the need to boost massively the number of new homes of all types.

Decades of insufficient housebuilding have left us with an undersupply of housing. We should be delivering about 250,000 new homes a year to meet housing need yet, the latest data shows, we are reaching annual numbers just under 190,000.

About 85 per cent of new homes are delivered by the private sector. This is in stark contrast to the 1960s when homebuilding reached heights of around 300,000 a year with almost half coming from the public sector.

Theresa May has recently acknowledged that we need more council housing. This is not a knee-jerk reaction to Grenfell but the clearest confirmation of work that had already been going on behind the scenes.

Under Gavin Barwell, the previous housing minister, we saw a shift away from the housing policies of Cameron, Brown and Blair, which focused strongly on homeownership, to a much broader approach. While supporting homeownership, we now have policies that embrace homes of all tenures delivered by a wider range of developer.

Indeed, the quietly revolutionary Housing White Paper which was launched in February, seeks to empower local authorities not only to challenge private developers more robustly but also to build housing of their own.

Regeneration is a complex process that requires a long-term strategy, careful planning and sincere negotiation away from the heat of politics. Hellman cartoon is from AJ of 22nd June 2017

With local authorities contributing around one per cent of all new housing and many lacking the relevant development skills, there’s much work to be done. But we also have an opportunity to think about housing differently.

Against the febrile backdrop of the Grenfell tragedy, Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, has signalled the need for further urban and estate regeneration in the capital. He is right to prompt councils to look beyond refurbishing old council stock and seek fundamental change to bring forward a bigger number of higher quality homes and better places.

Rethinking land use around big estates to include traditional street patterns, mid-rise buildings, mansion blocks, terraced housing and well-designed public space with greenery not only contributes to higher densities that big cities need but neighbourhoods communities want.

But with any urban regeneration project, sensitivity is needed. Residents must be at the heart of the process not an afterthought. The post-regeneration offering must be an improvement on the current accommodation with the right of return to better homes embedded in the process.

We need to look at how we enshrine protections in law to reassure communities whilst being flexible enough not to stymie development. Funding arrangements need to be looked at to accelerate construction, minimise disruption and ideally allow residents to move just once.

This is a complex process that requires a long-term strategy, careful planning and sincere negotiation away from the heat of politics. It is only by looking beyond partisanship and adopting a pragmatic and practical approach, that we will deliver lasting solutions to the housing crisis. n

MICRO-HOMES | NICK EASEN

Space invaders: arrival of the micro-home

Pressure on space and affordability is driving the design and construction of micro homes in crowded heavy populated cities says Nick Easen ABOVE: Y:Cube units made for the YMCA in Mitcham, south London. The development is made up of 36 modular studio-like apartments each 280 square feet in floor area, constructed offsite

Combine unaffordable housing with increased urbanisation and single- person occupancy, as well as population growth globally, then you have a bottleneck. Constrained living spaces or micro-homes could be the answer. Architects and construction companies are now advocating so-called tiny houses under 500 square feet (46m2) as a way of solving the housing crisis, an issue that looks set to get worse.

More than half the world’s population live in urban areas; by 2030 it will rise to 60 per cent, then one in every three people will live in cities with at least half a million inhabitants, according to the United Nations. By 2050 another 2.5 billion will be added to the urban masses.

It doesn’t help that London has the unenviable reputation of being the world’s least affordable city for real estate, second only to Hong Kong, says research by UBS Wealth Management.

Other cities at risk of housing bubbles include Vancouver, Stockholm, Munich and Sydney.

Is mico-housing the solution?

“The fact is micro-housing built close to mass-transportation services is an easy win towards liveable, sustainable and affordable cities,” says Alex Symes, architect and founder of Big World Homes, whose company is developing one of the world’s first flat-pack homes in Australia.

“The challenge is that governments around the world are

cautious to change minimum home sizes and zoning, as developers can take advantage of such planning amendments. The real issue is putting incentives into the regulations to ensure microhousing is developed in a sustainable and affordable fashion.”

The UK is no stranger to the tiny house concept. Head to the borough of Mitcham in south-west London and you can see the Y:Cube, 36 modular, studio-like apartments only 280 square feet (26m2) in size. Made for the YMCA, they cost around £30,000 to build, off-site in a factory. Container City in the Docklands is another micro-home development made of customised shipping containers; more are planned.

With top-notch design, the construction of small homes can be an efficient use of space. They can also provide short-term solutions for cities looking to utilise plots that have yet to be zoned properly. “That way the micro- home purchaser is not having to pay full value for the land and therefore can enter the market at a lower cost,” explains Mr Symes.

There’s also great flexibility when it comes to the use unexpected spaces. “We were approached by British Rail to see if we were interested in using land under the arches of elevated rail tracks. These spaces can be up to ten metres high – great for micro-homes,” says Quinten de Gooijer, general manager at Amsterdam-based Tempohousing.

Smaller units are also easier to prefabricate, saving time and money on each build. “We work under a controlled environment >>>

Issue 102 July-September 2017

11

MICRO-HOMES | NICK EASEN

>>> in a production hall with an efficient lay out of systems and, with no rain or snow, this increases the build quality significantly,” says Mr de Gooijer.

In the United States the drive for tiny houses has turned into a movement born out of the financial crisis a decade ago, which at the time drove Americans to seek more affordable, debt-free housing. Since then it’s flourished, with how-to websites, organisations and TV programmes.

12

Planning in London

In Europe some now see micro-homes and apartments as a move towards the sharing economy, since many normal homes are just unaffordable. “The new generations tend to move from ownership of everything to a right-of-use model,” explains Mr de Gooijer.

“The housing industry will eventually undergo that same transformation – it is about offering quality living first of all and not about creating an investment for your future pension.” n

TECHNOLOGY | PAUL FINCH

Technology really is changing the face of design and planning Disruption can be invigorating says Paul Finch

First published in the Architects’ Journal, with kind consent

Paul Finch is editorial director of the Architects’ Journal and joint publishing editor of Planning in London

A brilliant presentation at the recent BCO annual conference highlighted the way that property and technology are coming together in new ways that should be positive for most players, because there will be big increases in time and cost efficiency, and the potential to iron out disputes where there is a demonstrable correct answer.

The presentation was of a new digital model of London called Vucity. It has been developed by Wagstaffs Design, (which featured in PiL100, page 9) which specialises in digital media in various forms, working with Gordon Ingram Associates, known to many as a rights-of-light consultant, but now spreading its digital wings too.

Vucity is light years ahead of the old Sim City model, partly because so far it has focussed on one city, London, but more importantly because of the increasing sophistication of games technology, which has been deployed to extraordinary effect. A huge swathe of the capital is now modelled in detail, to an accuracy level of a few centimetres, and the load time as you swoop around the model is very rapid.

Using this model, which is already being adopted under licence by several London local authorities, you can do a huge variety of things at high speed. For example, you can get the equivalent of verified views of anything from anywhere; you can add in proposals that have planning consent; you can further add proposals in the public domain not yet approved.

In other words you can start to have a sensible discussion about views, particularly involving tall buildings, which are based on reality, not a couple of perspectives carefully chosen to illustrate either that the building has no effect whatsoever, or that it is a monstrous blot on the landscape from all directions. That won’t wash any more.

Not only can you can views of existing or proposed developments, but you can get views from them too. Suppose you want to know what it will be like looking out from the 30th floor of the Cheesegrater – a couple of clicks and you are there.

Another click will reveal those permitted buildings, and another click proposals which are in the planning pipeline. The results can be startling.

Routine exercises like sun and shadow paths can be revealed in a couple of seconds, and you can pick any month and any time if you want to be specific. It doesn’t stop there, since you can also get real-time street images from public cctv cameras, of the sort operated by TFL. The intention is to make the system available under license, so the most likely users will be planning authorities, planning consultants, large firms of architects, and of course some developers and agents. Will amenity groups be able to access the

information without paying? Probably not, but there will be nothing to stop any licensee sharing information if it is not-forprofit, which will raise concerns in the minds of those who regard pressure groups with fear and loathing.

On the other hand the possibility of getting the full picture about any development is more likely, in my judgement, to undermine bogus objections on grounds of appearance or interference with views, because it will be possible as a matter of course to get the full visual story in a matter of seconds – we will no longer have to rely on the idea that only three or 12 views really matter because it is too expensive to generate 25.

Most important, it will be easy to get accurate views from the perspective of the pedestrian; one my favourite views in London is from Fleet Street, where on one side near El Vino’s you can only see the Cheesegrater and the Gherkin on the skyline; cross the road and walk a few metres near the Cheshire Cheese and you can only see St Paul’s Dome.

With the GLA looking to enhance planning procedures by entering the digital world, and with the Nick Leslau-backed Built-ID making waves by telling you everything about the built environment (sort of), things are on the move. Disruption can be invigorating. n

Issue 102 July-September 2017

13

THE NPPF | MARTHA GREKOS AND ANTONIA FRANGAKIS

Five-year land supply: clarity at last?

If there is no five year supply of housing available, the weight to be given to restrictive development policies should be judged against the need for development within the area. Martha Grekos and Antonia Frangakis explain the Supreme Court's ruling on paragraph 49 of the NPPF On 10th May 2017, the Supreme Court handed down what is now a relatively well-publicised judgment in the joined appeals of Suffolk Coastal District Council v Hopkins Homes Ltd & Richborough Estates Partnership LLP v Cheshire East Borough Council [2017] UKSC 37.

The appeals turned on the proper interpretation of paragraphs 14 and 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework ("NPPF") and particularly the meaning of 'relevant policies for the supply of housing,' which should not be considered up to date where a council cannot show a fiveyear housing supply.

The Supreme Court disagreed with the approach taken by the Court of Appeal, which was to read a wide interpretation into the wording so that it included policies for the general protection of the countryside, including for example Green Belt policy and policies for the conservation of AONBs and National Parks. The Supreme Court has rejected a broad interpretation of paragraph 49 of the NPPF and, instead, confined the relevant policies to those by which 'acceptable housing sites are to be identified and the five-year supply target is to be achieved'.

The judgment has narrowed this approach, holding that the wording applies only to policies which set out how housing sites are to be identified and the five year supply target is to be achieved. It has clarified that Green Belt policy (amongst others) should not be considered out of date simply because the Council could not demonstrate a five-year supply of housing. This seems sensible in light of the clear intention under the NPPF to protect Green Belt land, and brings us back to a less legalistic approach to wording in the NPPF. It reminds us there is no need to read into the wording or over-complicate what should be inferred; the phrase "relevant policies for the supply of housing" are those which relate to housing.

The Supreme Court also reiterated that planmaking and decision-making should be set against paragraph 14 of the NPPF, i.e. that there is a pre-

14

Planning in London

sumption in favour of sustainable development, save where there are adverse impacts which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the NPPF as a whole, or where specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted.

Set against this, the decision asserts the importance, and statutory footing, of the local plan over the NPPF in the decision-making process. This may lead developers looking to develop in the Green Belt to locate other policies on which they may be able to place weight in the absence of a five-year housing land supply.

Thus, whilst the Supreme Court considered that paragraph 49 of the NPPF should have a narrow meaning, in the absence of a five-year housing land supply, it has a wider effect in the planning balance set by paragraph 14. In practice, therefore, whilst restrictive development policies such as those relating to the environment and amenity remain relevant, if there is no five year supply of housing available, the weight to be given to them should be judged against the need for development within the area, which remains the preserve of planning judgement. The justices were keen to stress that the 'rigid enforcement' of such policies often frustrates national housing objectives.

While this may feel like a step backwards for some developers, many will welcome the certainty the decision has now provided, and local authorities will no doubt appreciate the sentiments expressed regarding their statutory local plans. By the same token, however, if, having applied the tilted balance, local planning authorities decide against granting planning permission, we may see a proliferation of appeals by developers in search of a different outcome from the Secretary of State.

If the outcome of this judgment is to hinder residential development it may set the tone for developers to look to appeal refusals through other avenues. Of course, this is only one of many hurdles as in reality the determination of planning

Martha Grekos (ABOVE) is Partner and Head of Planning and Antonia Frangakis is a Paralegal with Howard Kennedy LLP

applications is relatively subjective and can be influenced by any one of a number of factors. It also needs to be remembered that the presumption in favour of sustainable development, this 'golden thread', under paragraph 14 is subject to material considerations, which can be as wideranging as a local planning authority may decide. n

POLITICS AND PLANNING | STEPHEN ASHWORTH

Beyond the election Planning can help build by bits says Stephen Ashworth Recently London has been largely immune from national electoral cycles. It has a scale, pace, life and economic heart that has allowed it to carry on regardless. The June 2017 election result is largely an irrelevance. Stronger forces buffet the capital: Brexit uncertainty, terrorism and resilience, and fires. There is also a political sense that London has not only had its cake but eaten everyone else's. So Crossrail 2 is unlikely to get much immediate central government funding while there is a deafening clamour for public investment anywhere but London. How will this play out on the planning front? There are six main post-election themes.

Affordable housing tops the agenda.

Nationally, a renewed focus is necessary to deal with political disaffection. At a Mayoral level the emphasis will largely be about numbers, and the lack of new homes being built. There is a need for new players in the housing market and the Mayor will be exploring the mechanisms needed to encourage others to enter – both housing associations and local authorities. At local authority level, with the support of the Mayor, the emphasis will be on quality and safety. Their attention will immediately be on the enormous project of making the tower blocks safe. It will then be about ensuring that new affordable housing is delivered properly. The main justification for affordable housing is that it helps to create mixed and balanced communities. A genuine mix and balance cannot be achieved if people are segregated or live in houses with markedly different standards and appearances. An equitable housing balance, providing high quality and safe homes for everyone, will be the responsibility of planners.

Plan reviews will abound. The Mayor is publishing a whole suite of strategies over the next few months, updating the entire London Plan.

Westminster has announced a full review. Most other authorities will be going through the same process. TfL is reviewing the Crossrail CIL. Other authorities around London will be looking at their CILs, and will probably be a bit more adventurous.

There will be turmoil of plans. We will all need to work to de-professionalise these. At the moment they are, too often, the product of suits talking to

suits. That is probably because they are the wrong plans. No one sensible is going to engage in a 200page strategy. The election showed how complicated ideas can be communicated, simply and graphically. Planning has something to learn.

Security is endless. There is a risk that we start Stephen Ashworth is a to turn the city into a citadel, barriered and barri- partner at law firm caded, closed not open. A challenge for the next Dentons decade, not just the next few years, is how to make sure that our open spaces and public realm are outwards looking, diverse and tolerant. off-limits. Maybe we will learn that land is not really scarce; rather that we have been lazy.

Planning will need to lead on that.

Cash is limited. We may be moving towards Planners should lead on this.

Small contributions count. Politicians, planners the end of austerity but in the words of Churchill, this is the end of the beginning, rather than the and professionals focus on the big. London is a beginning of the end. Local authorities will have rich tapestry and changes house by house, street little money in the short term, but will face by street and neighbourhood by neighbourhood. increasing demands. There will be a pressure for We need to encourage this. The little liberties of further fiscal devolution in London but that is brownfield registers and planning in principle may unlikely to succeed. We should expect landowners lead the way. Local authority-led Local to be squeezed. Not only will CIL rates increase, Development Orders could follow. A Mayor-led but affordable housing requirements, in numbers approach of safe devolution and deregulation and quality, will edge up. Obligations to replace would help. Planning can help build by bits.

This note started off as a post-election paper. existing on-site facilities, particularly employment uses will increase. Planning mechanisms, possibly In fact, it is a pre-election commentary. These using the "planning freedoms" powers will be used issues will set the context for the Mayoral election to capture value. Expect land to be worth less, in 2020. How London adapts to reinvent land and even if the value of development being provided is pay for infrastructure, provide resilient housing higher. Planning will continue to be a reluctant and facilitate development, both large and small, will be reflected in the voters' verdict. n and ill-equipped tax collector.

Land will be a focus. Land is, notionally, a scarce resource. In London, land that is easy to develop, at least at scale, is certainly hard to find.

More attention will be paid to bringing some of the underused public sector, and private sector, land to the market. Planning authorities will have to look more vigorously at ways to use CPO powers to help assemble sites. There will also be some gentle exploration of compulsory land pooling, and shared compensation. There is also a need to create "new" land. Land above shopping centres and supermarkets is an increasing focus. Wasted car parks will be reused. Redundant retail warehouse parks will be repurposed. There may be a drive to explore more acquisition, possibly compulsory, of air rights. Some parts of the suburbs will have to be reviewed – areas that have been

Issue 102 July-September 2017

15

HOUSING AND POLITICS | DUNCAN BOWIE

Housing and planning politics after the general election Duncan Bowie says our whole approach to planning, development and housing policy needs a fundamental rethink The Housing White Paper published by Teresa May, Sajid Javid and the former Minister, Gavin Barwell in February, represented a significant shift in the thinking of the Conservative Government. The fact that it was titled’ Fixing the Broken Housing Market’ was significant. The government had abandoned the view held by the Coalition government, and to a large extent by the labour governments of 1997-2010, that the main objective should be to increase access to owner occupation. Over most of the last two decades, we have seen an increase in houseprices, well above increases in earnings, with a consequent reduction in the affordability of home ownership for prospective first time buyers, especially, but not exclusively, in London and the South east of England. Not surprisingly there has been a fall, for the first time since the First World War, in the proportion of households who are home owners, and a doubling of the proportion who are in private rented housing. In London this proportion is 25 per cent, compared with 23 per cent in social housing and and 52 per cent in owner occupation (with 24 per cent being owned outright). The White Paper recognised that not all households could be owner occupiers and that the supply of rented homes needed to be increased.

The Conservative Party’s General Election Manifesto recognised the need to build more homes and reaffirmed the commitment made in 2015 to deliver a million new homes by the end of 2020, but added a further half million in the following 2 years. It referred to the proposals in the Housing White Paper to ‘ free up more land for new homes in the right places, speed up buildout by encouraging modern methods of construction and give councils powers to intervene where developers do not act on their planning permissions.” The manifesto spoke of the need to improve the quality of new homes built and to meet a range of different housing needs. More surprisingly, the manifesto also referred to the need for ‘the active participation of social and municipal housing providers’. The manifesto was explicit – “So we will help councils to build, but only those councils who will build high- quality,

16

Planning in London

sustainable and integrated communities. We will enter into new Council Housing Deals with ambitious, pro-development local authorities to help them build more social housing.”

As has been widely discussed, the Conservative manifesto did not include any specific costings, so there is no indication of the size of this new council housing programme or how much grant is to be provided and where this funding is going to be sourced. However, the manifesto does state that local authorities will be provided with significant ‘ low-cost capital funding’, which implies loans rather than grant. Ministers have subsequently clarifies that the new council homes will not be at social rents but at ‘affordable rents – up to 80 per cent market rents. The manifesto refers to ‘new fixed-term social houses, which will be sold privately after ten or fifteen years with an automatic Right to Buy for tenants.” It is unclear how tenants who cannot afford to buy their homes would be rehoused.

It is however also relevant that the Labour party’s manifesto which promised that 100,000 new homes would be ‘genuinely affordable’ and was supported by a separate costing document published by the shadow chancellor John McDonnell, did not include any specific funding, implying incorrectly that the proposal to allow councils to increase their borrowing would provide sufficient resources, rather ignoring the fact that an income stream is required to fund increased borrowing.

The Conservative manifesto includes some other proposals – to reform Compulsory Purchase Orders and to make it easier to determine the true market values of sites, and to capture increases in land value SE11, fromLambeth development ‘ to Sail Street reinvest in local infrastructure, essential services and further housing’. There is also an emphasis on higher density low-rise homes, such as ‘mansion blocks, mews houses and terraced streets’. This reflect the influence of the ‘Create Streets’ lobby but does not deal with the fact that such housing products tend to unaffordable by most households. The Manifesto, in parallel with that of the Labour Party, also reaffirms the protection of the Green Belt, which leaves open the question that

Duncan Bowie is senior lecturer in spatial planning and housing and course leader MA in Urban and Regional Planning, University of Westminster

of new development is to be low rise, where are all the new homes going to go. It is interesting that the manifesto always refers to ‘houses’ when discussing new development. This is despite most new development being mainly flats, especially in London.

Just in case we may think the Conservatives are now council friendly, the manifesto also includes a hint of the previous ideological hostility – ‘councils have been amongst the worst offenders in failing to build sustainable, integrated communities. In some instances, they have built for political gain rather than for social purpose’. This rather misses the point that it is not unreasonable for people to vote for politicians who help to provide them with somewhere decent to live. It should also be noted that the Conservative manifesto made no reference to the 2016 Housing and Planning Act, a heritage from the Cameron/ Nick Boles era, most of which has not actually been brought into effect, largely because Gavin Barwell and presumably Theresa May, rightly saw it as counterproductive.

Of course the election was not dominated by debates over housing and planning, but issues of security and terrorism and, perhaps to a lesser extent than anticipated, BREXIT. The Manchster attack led to the Labour Party’s mini manifesto on housing being delayed until two days before the election, which meant its promise of a stamp duty holiday for first time buyers (buying homes under £300,000) went largely un-noticed. The main consequence of the election for housing was that Gavin Barwell, a relatively informed and progressive housing minister, losing his seat, though within hours being installed at 10 Downing Street as Theresa May’s chief of staff, replacing the disgraced team of Fiona Hill and

Nick Timothy, who were held largely responsible for Theresa May’s future to retain or even strengthen her parliamentary majority.

So Barwell will still have influence, though no doubt his attention will now be focused on matters other than housing. The new housing and planning minister, Alok Sharma, the Reading West MP, with a background in the City, is not known to have any past experience in housing and planning, or for that matter any interest in the issues, other than like many Home Counties MP, having a record, according to Inside Housing of opposing new developments in his constituency. Sharma is the 13th Housing minister in 16 years and like many of his predecessors, will take time to settle in.

Barwell, with his extensive experience as a Croydon councillor, and with a supportive secretary of state, was able to apply significant influence fairly quickly. Whether Sharma is ideologically supportive of the need for state intervention in housing, recognised by May and Barwell in contrast with the previously dominant perspective of Cameron and Boles, that the market would sort it has yet to be seen. Neither the Housing White Paper nor the Conservative Manifesto explicitly refers to new legislation in relation to housing and planning. The Queen’s Speech given on 21st June had only two relatively minor housing-related Bills – one to ban letting agents in England charging fees to tenants as a condition of tenancy; the other a Good Mortgages Bill which allows mortgagees to use vehicles as security for mortgages. With the focus on Brexit for the next two years, housing and planning reform is unlikely to get space in the legislative programme.

Despite the fact that housing is not a key priority for legislation at present, the Grenfell Tower fire has however dramatically changed the political context for discussing housing and planning.

We will have months if not years of everybody involved blaming everyone else. There is however a recognition that fire regulations need to be strengthened and enforced and that wrapping tower blocks in flammable plastic is not the best construction technique. The practice of housing families with young children and other vulnerable people on the top floors of council tower blocks, a practice which had been largely abandoned by most London boroughs in the 1980’s, should be stopped altogether. There is also a reinvigoration of the debate as to why we are giving planning consent to residential towers at all. Sadiq Khan, the London Mayor, so far like his two predecessors a supporter if not necessarily an enthusiast for high rise, is now saying that families in tower blocks should be rehoused in lower rise schemes.

We do however have to find lower rise social housing for them, and bluntly there is not much

Housing by Assael Architecture – see A professional manifesto overpage

left, mainly due to 38 years of council house sales – it is always the houses and lower-rise flats that get sold first. Most of the sub-market homes in the development programme (and that is only 13 per cent of the development pipeline, are also flats, many in high density and sometimes high rise schemes, and most are shared ownership and sub-market rent not social housing and therefore not affordable by the mainly lower income tower residents. Alok Sharma may promise that the households who have lost their homes will be rehoused in the Notting Hill area – Kensington and Chelsea Council has responded that they can’t rehouse these households within the borough and need help from their neighbours. This is not surprising given they are not the only London borough to place homeless households in temporary accommodation out of borough and even out of London. Councils may need to take over management of some empty privately owned private properties – Kensington and Chelsea probably has more than any other council in the coun-

try – and already has powers – the Empty Property Management Order procedure.

So the fire has not just drawn the attention of politicians to the need for tighter control of building and refurbishment, but to the acuteness of the pre-existing housing crisis. Central Government and local authorities are going to have to spend a lot more money that they had budgeted for, and we may see a shift in policy from the current focus of building new homes for investors to building homes that people can afford – both for new households and for those who need to be rehoused from towers. This also leads to a rethink of what kind of homes we need and where we put them. We need lower rise affordable homes in central London and the suburbs. If we are building at lower densities, we also need more land and we need land that does not cost £100 million a hectare. Our whole approach to planning, development and housing policy needs a fundamental rethink. This time lessons must be learnt. n

Issue 102 July-September 2017

17

MANIFESTO | JOHN ASSAEL

A professional manifesto The tumultuous times we live in show no sign of calming just yet, leaving us with the responsibility to steer policies in the right direction says John Assael The times we live in are far from boring, and the result of the general election is testimony to this. Everyone took for granted the outcome, citing polls and penning columns that proclaimed the inevitable. Yet the result was very different from what everyone expected: a hung parliament.

Ironically, the result of a hung parliament is befitting for the uncertainty of our political times.

The looming Brexit negotiations are already underway and we are no more aware of what deal we are aiming for, or even the desired outcome of the negotiations. This uncertainty has bled into domestic politics, producing a government which can barely govern with certainty and a house divided across many lines.

For our sector, these events are extraordinarily frustrating. The previous government laid the groundwork for tangible change in housing, planning and construction. The housing white paper, the industrial strategy green paper and multiple select committees and consultations have acknowledged the fact that our housing market is broken and our construction industry is not fit for purpose.

All the government debate and activity around housing proves that it has never been such a pressing subject. The housing crisis in the UK shows no sign of ceasing, and has reached endemic levels in major cities such as London. It affects all of us, in both our professional lives and our personal lives.

The current domestic uncertainty and the looming Brexit negotiations threaten to push housing further down the agenda, undoing all the great work that has been done. This will be a catastrophe that we need to prevent.

That is why Assael Architecture has put together a ‘micro-manifesto’ that aims to keep the pressure on the new government. The manifesto covers nine subject areas that require the attention and support of government in order to build muchneeded homes throughout the UK. The first area that needs attention is something that we have seen rapidly increase over the past decade: homelessness. Homelessness is a symbol of a failing society. People’s inability to access the shelter they deserve puts and enormous strain on

18

Planning in London

public services, through health issues and other negative social effects. The Housing First policy, pursued in Scandinavia and North America, has now started here in the UK and needs to be supported by the private and public sector. The policy has proved a highly effective way of reducing the number of rough sleepers by providing a home for John Assael is chairman of those with acute needs and histories of entrenched Assael Architecture rough sleeping.

However, any policy that is serious about tack- regulations, with the upshot being a quicker, ling homelessness needs to be centralised with cheaper planning process. Maintaining construcrealistic levels of funding. Too often the emphasis is tion standards is vital at a time when many conput on local authorities when what is needed is an sumers are losing their confidence in large houseinitiative that brings together experts in housing, builders. Earning their trust and improving the coneducation, justice and healthcare from both the fidence in the market should be a priority of the public and private sectors to help people get the new government. shelter they need.

Density has long been a contested issue within The housing crisis is at its most acute in urban the British housing market, with the high-rise invitareas. Cities like London are crying out for new ing connotations of neglect and dystopian urban housing supply, with rents becoming increasing expanses. Yet increasing density will undoubtedly unaffordable. While space standards for affordable play a part in solving the housing crisis. Planning housing need to be protected at all costs, the needs to allow for denser design, in terms of height required standards for private need to be more and space requirements, while allowing low-densiflexible. The rigidity of these standards fail to con- ty buildings to be renovated. This won’t be feasible sider the new forms of living that are becoming at a local authority level so we need to have clear, prevalent in cities. Many people are happy to live in region-wide plans around density to ensure that smaller spaces when they gain the convenience of planning delays are reduced and costly legal paya reduced commute and where there is plentiful outs for planning appeals are avoided. communal amenity space in the building. Space Solving the housing crisis in Britain is no small standards for private housing need to allow for feat and will require a radically different way of these new forms of living, otherwise housing sup- doing things. Offsite construction is one area ply will continue to lag hopelessly behind the where we have seen tremendous progress. No demands of our cities. longer do modules resemble their distant ancesWhilst increasing the number of homes is of tors of the post-war era. The level of quality and the upmost importance to the new government, the energy efficiency found in the modules being manufactured today can be superior to homes built quality of these homes shouldn’t be left by the wayside.

Multiple stories have appeared on TV and in the national using traditional construction methods, and they press on the sub-standard quality of new build homes take around half the time to build. However, offsite throughout the UK, implicating some of Britain’s biggest construction needs sufficient factory throughput housebuilders and tarnishing their reputations. The cost of to make it a viable means of construction for both poor design - and poor implementation - usually falls on developers and housing associations. Policy, therehomeowners, but with more long-term investors entering fore, needs to create a consistent rate of demand the residential market the incentives are shifting. and de-risk further factory expansion, as we curThe policy environment needs to focus on cre- rently don’t have the productive capacity to solve ating construction standards that prevent build- the housing shortage by modular means. With quality issues, maintenance costs spiralling and Brexit, there will be a reduction in the number of snag costs. This could be done through building construction workers from Europe too.

Assael’s micro-manifesto: Building a Better Future

these approaches have done nothing to help get people off the streets.

The third sector cannot be expected to solve homelessness alone; there needs to be comprehensive support and commitment across statutory, voluntary and commercial sectors to help people get the shelter they need.”

1. Homelessness A radical Housing First approach could help support efforts around mental health, and reduce growing numbers of rough sleepers

Homelessness is no less a public health issue than drink driving or obesity. And it’s a material fact that homelessness and mental health issues often go hand in hand. By taking more radical and proactive steps to address the issue, we can save millions of pounds bouncing problems down the road to the NHS or the prison system.

People who receive the help they need early on can avoid either route. Too much emphasis is placed on local authorities to provide solutions when they need to be coordinated centrally, with realistic levels of funding. We need to bring together not just charities and housing experts, but figures from education, healthcare and justice.

Similarly, a singular focus is placed on affordable housing as a solution. Private developers should pay a fair contribution, but there are swathes of people who need help and support that goes beyond housing assistance. We should look at directly creating supported housing that offers people shelter and then allows them to address issues such as addiction and relationship abuse.

Housing First has been successful in North America and Finland. It would be possible to garner private investment if these were underpinned by housing benefit contributions, but these will not be without short-term cost.

The long- term benefits, however, are clear.

Without real change, an unacceptably large number of citizens will remain disenfranchised.

Chris Hancock, Head of Housing at Crisis, said: "Ending homelessness is increasingly the key challenge facing local communities. The number of people having to sleep rough has grown rapidly over the last five years and is a symptom of the UK’s broken housing market.

Sadly, we have not seen as much focus on the necessary permanent solutions whilst we have seen an increase in activity and policy which has not been focused on helping get rough sleepers off the street, but rather punishing them for being there. From boarding up porticos, to concrete spikes being installed on walls and under bridges,

A diversity of tenures was a policy pursued by the previous government and is something that needs to be seen through. The emerging Build to Rent sector is providing rental homes for Britain’s nine million renters with a level of professionalism and quality of service that has not been seen before in the private rental sector. Build to Rent is also attracting foreign investment into the UK, providing fresh capital for the housing market and pioneering new forms of living. What’s more, the business model and unit-design make Build to Rent perfect for pursuing modern methods of construction, such as offsite construction. The developers and operators want to get the buildings open to residents as

soon as possible to activate their revenue streams.

This incentivises developers to choose building techniques that are faster than traditional methods.

New approaches to mixed-use can create developments that enable cultural spaces to thrive alongside residential units. Nightclubs and music venues have long been in decline in UK cities, despite British music being known around the world.

By designing mixed-use schemes that combine both new homes and new space used for entertainment or cultural purposes, the increasing trend of venue closures can be reversed. Assael Architecture’s work on Riverside Studios in Hammersmith is a

great case study for this model, bringing together high quality residential apartments with television and recording studios, a cinema, cafés and restaurants. As people start to spend more and more money on experiences rather than buying objects, design needs to provide spaces where experiences can be created and cherished.

The tumultuous times we live in show no sign of calming just yet, leaving us in a position of responsibility to steer the policy in the right direction. We must make demands on the government to ensure that our industries are not left by the wayside, and that homes and cities are built in the best possible way - with the future in mind. n

This year’s snap general election has brought with it the snap drafting of political manifestos, setting out what voters can expect from their newly elected government. Amid calls from the Tories to cut immigration and make people pay for social care through housing, Lib Dem proposals to liberalise drugs and Labour’s move to nationalise water utilities, building new housing has remained a hot topic.

February’s Housing White Paper set out a distinct change of direction away from home ownership at all costs. But significant thinking still needs to be done to tackle the wider challenges we face in housing people across UK cities. The advent of new mayors brings with it a great opportunity to better coordinate city planning, just as successive London mayors have sought to harvest investment and innovation.

Assael Architecture believes that great design and better housing should be delivered throughout the UK, regardless of politics. Our micro manifesto is intended to inform debate around national and local politics, challenging thinking about how the private and public sector can come together to improve the design and livability of our cities.

2. Space standards The rigidity that space standards cast over the housing market prevents new, innovative types of housing from being built easily. Without a more flexible approach to the space standards for private homes, the crisis is only going to worsen. The inflexibility of these standards is at its most apparent in urban locations, where large swathes of people compete for scarce housing.

The incoming government needs to rethink the archaic space standards for private housing that fail to recognise the changing needs of consumers and the increasing provision of shared amenity spaces, work areas and communal lounges. While minimum space standards are essential for affordable housing, in the private realm it is nonsensical to ignore the truth that plenty of people are happy to live in smaller spaces in central locations where space is at a premium and where there is an amenity offering.

Demographic and cultural changes mean that the book, record and video collections that people once maintained are all contained on the ‘cloud’, while more people work longer and eat out, all reducing the demand for space. Some would happily gain convenience and a shorter commute and >>>

Issue 102 July-September 2017

19

MANIFESTO | JOHN ASSAEL

>>> accept a reduction in the space at home.

The planning system needs to better appreciate these changes and the offerings that different tenures provide the market. Communal, amenitydriven spaces, where residents can still enjoy all their home comforts, reduces the need for large bedrooms and kitchens. Without the government reviewing the standard requirements needed to label a development as ‘habitable’, the supply of housing is going to continue to fall short of demand. Economic and cultural changes are driving changes in what people want from their homes.

Space standards need to reflect this fact.

Simon Chatfield, Director for Research & Operations at Be:here, said: “Having undertaken significant research into what renters want over the last five years and with two operational Build to Rent schemes we find ourselves with a wealth of data into who exactly rents the homes we provide and what their needs and aspirations are for the way they live in today’s world. It is clear that these needs are changing and we need to change too if we are able to offer what renters want.

This requires us to innovate in the way we design the homes and buildings that we develop, as well as the services and facilities we provide. In order to do this we need to be able to create new ideas – in particular we need to be able to offer a range of homes to cater for the wide range of people that wish to rent them. We cannot resolve the housing crisis but with flexibility around key areas, such as space standards, we can make a significant contribution by providing attainable, welldesigned and professionally-managed homes for tenants across cities in the UK.”

3. Construction standards The problems that are starting to surface around build-quality, notably astronomical maintenance and snag costs, have won the attention of government, industry and national newspapers. Enduring quality is an issue that has plagued many new builds in the UK. Unfortunately, the recent media reports are only the tip of the iceberg as it is likely that many more reports of poor build quality will surface in the coming months.

The policy environment could do more to

20

Planning in London

the products being built."

Meanwhile, the stand-off over green belt development continues in the North and South.

When combined with the challenge of reducing carbon emissions, city planners face a uniquely difficult conundrum. Policy must direct planning to allow for high density design, both in height and space requirements, to be delivered at speed in areas that are well-served by public transport.

Also, planning needs to provide scope to replace, or build over, low-density buildings such as car parks and retail warehouses, which contribute little to urban areas. To create high density cities, planning policy needs to take a flexible approach that respects the specificity of each site.

For example, avoiding a rigid application of open space standards if there are good facilities nearby and adequate provision in the wider area. Urban planning should embrace the advances in building technologies, such as modular construction, prioritising public land for those willing to embrace new technology.

Offsite construction has the potential to deliver buildings faster, with less waste and disruption, in a more sustainable fashion. Making it economically viable is a challenge. Having clear, regionwide plans around density can help ensure planning delays are reduced and costly legal payouts for planning appeals are avoided. But integrating these plans with surface access plans, infrastructure investment and other key services is a must.

Doing this at local authority level will not be viable, and this is hopefully a lead that can be taken by the new regional metro mayors.

Bill Hughes, Head of Real Assets, at Legal & General, said: “The Government should consider strategies to incentivise urban regeneration and the development of brownfield sites. We need to encourage greater density of build, particularly around transport hubs and in town centres. Using residential development as a catalyst for regeneration, we can bring people back to the centre of our cities, retain talent and boost economic productivity. Urban planning, and the policy framework that supports it, should reflect the needs of the cities and understand the challenges facing the urban environment. Constantly looking to the future, factors such as sustainability and efficiency need to be brought to the forefront of urban planning policy in order to future proof our cities.”

4. Urban planning for high density cities As more and more people are drawn to cities like London, there is going to be an ever-increasing demand for homes across a variety of tenures. The housing crisis is at its most acute in cities. Growing populations spawn demand for infrastructure, commercial space and public realm built to deal with the additional strain.

5. Offsite construction Offsite construction, and other modern methods of construction (MMC), will play a vital role in achieving the ambitious housing targets set out by the government. Offsite construction can provide high-quality, energy efficient homes far quicker than traditional construction, without the maintenance costs and the drain on the

ensure that build quality is maintained throughout the construction process, making sure that the homes being delivered are habitable and enduring.

Introducing design standards is conducive to creating a collaborative dynamic between architects, contractors and trades from the nascent stages of every project.

We believe more of this can be enforced through building regulations, with the upshot being a quicker, cheaper planning process. While the costs of poor new homes ultimately fall on consumers, with more long-term investors building homes for rent, the incentives for change are shifting. Poor design leads to higher maintenance costs which dent returns and chip away at a company’s reputation. In an environment where the public has become increasingly distrustful of large corporations, it’s important that we address these issues.

Mark Farmer, CEO & Co-founder of CAST, said: “The recent media focus on construction quality, especially in the house-building world, has brought the long-standing debate about 'cowboy builders' and consumer dissatisfaction in the domestic housing market, uncomfortably close to commercial real estate developers and funders. Many of the problems now being experienced across the board are a direct consequence of capacity pressures with an overall dilution in the standard of design, workmanship, supervision and sign off procedures.

Any incoming government needs to take these issues very seriously and to look at how confidence can be restored in the quality of the industry's delivery. This can be through promotion of more modern, factory-led construction techniques as well as improvement in the accreditations of both the skills and qualifications of workers and

Programme that seek to do just this. Additional confidence in the sector can be provided through the implementation of minimum offsite build requirements on large developments.

This includes through reducing or eliminating section 106 or CIL requirements on builds incorporating a certain level of innovative construction techniques, or specifying some or all affordable housing grant only be provided where offsite tech-

dwindling labour supply. Yet, the current capacity for offsite in the UK can only produce around 15,000 units a year – a fraction of the homes needed to solve the housing crisis.

What’s more, without a steady rate of demand for offsite construction, there is little incentive for manufacturers to increase their capacity due to the overheads incurred when demand is low. Policy could be crucial in creating a constant pipeline of throughput for modular manufacturers, helping them achieve scale and encouraging them to expand capacity further.

By de-risking the expansion of capacity for modular manufacturers, the sector could scale-up to contribute a substantial amount of homes to the market. However, policy needs to be agnostic to the type of system used in factories in order to enable fair competition between modular manufacturers.

The recently published Housing White Paper sets out initial ideas that the incoming government should make a priority to see through. Initiatives such as freeing up public land for offsite-led developments will lead many developers to take a closer look at the viability of modular construction, as well as creating the stability offsite needs to prosper.

James Lidgate, Head of Housing at Legal & General Capital, said: “Offsite construction, with the right support from both government and industry, could play an enormous part in solving the housing crisis. Of course, there is no silver bullet for the challenges we face in this market, but it can make a significant contribution to delivering homes at pace throughout the UK. Diversification goes beyond housing tenures. We need more entrants to the sector and new business models to deliver the shortfall of new homes – building houses faster and more efficiently than ever before. The policy priorities are to create a stable rate of throughput for factories to make them economically viable and incentivise expanding the productive capacity of modular providers in the UK. Off-site manufacturers need confidence that their product will have the scale of demand necessary as the sector goes through its initial journey of becoming a mainstream construction method. To this end, we are strongly supportive of government initiatives such as the Accelerated Construction

nology is being utilised.”

6. Build to Rent Britain’s 9 million private renters have a vote and politicians have realised they deserve a better deal. Corporate landlords have the potential to offer that, building more homes, quicker with long-term institutional finance. Build to Rent has grown in popularity with investors, but policy makers need to better understand the differences between housing designed and funded for rent, versus properties built for sale.

A growing variety of developments are emerging: some take the U.S. approach of offering attractive, shared amenity spaces while others are comfortable with a more stripped-back approach. Many housebuilders are now doing deals with investors alongside the array of forward-funding deals occurring.

Award-winning schemes like Essential Living’s Creekside Wharf, designed by Assael and winner of the Sunday Times Homes Award, have shown that build to rent can support real innovation in design – not just in offering communal facilities, but in dealing with the needs of different demographics. Build to Rent is attracting politicians as it brings in fresh capital into the UK economy. Because there’s income at stake, the companies have a commercial imperative to fill the homes quickly and keep tenants happy. We see design as being crucial to that, but also a policy environment that understands the nuances and complexities that come with building investment properties.

The government’s shift away from home ownership is testimony to what Build to Rent can deliver for the residential market. It needs to cement many of its proposals firm in the National Planning Policy Guidance and mandate rental targets from councils. Policy should provide recognition of discount market rent (DMR) as a form of affordable

housing. Providing traditional social rented accommodation, managed by registered providers, within Build to Rent developments is not possible. It is therefore important for there to be recognition of DMR in order to streamline planning and the overall speed of delivery.

Darryl Flay, CEO of Essential Living, said: “Our ambition is to create truly aspirational housing at a range of price points. The growth and popularity of the build to rent sector is welcome as there is a scale of demand far beyond what any single business can provide. Successive governments have taken steps to support the sector because they want to attract institutional capital that can build more homes, quicker.

We hope many of the sensible suggestions of the white paper are taken forward. The big untapped opportunity for this market is using public assets to form JVs that could create long term income streams for councils and public bodies from rent, allowing the state to generate profit without

selling off the family silver.”

7. Cultural spaces Culture is the life blood of all great cities. Yet it is increasingly being priced out of the cities. We need to strike a balance. British art, music and fashion are known throughout the world. Cities have inspired and nurtured some of the world’s most striking talent. But a crushing business rates regime, militant licensing and social shifts have seen many once- bustling music venues and arts clubs shut, replaced often by anonymous chain stores or housing.

What we need is balance. And if that means designing smarter schemes that subsidise arts and media space with housing, then we should do this.

Policy must allow small and medium-sized cultural venues to flourish. While London’s Night Tsar is a step in the right direction - and is an example likely to be mimicked in regional cities - more could be done around planning laws and noise regulations to support cultural venues throughout the country.

For example, Local Authorities should consider using an Article 4 Direction and other legal contracts to protect music venues and maintain their accessibility. What’s more, developers could work collaboratively with planners in order to set up ‘cultural zones’: areas set aside for music, art and cul- >>>

Issue 102 July-September 2017

21

MANIFESTO | JOHN ASSAEL

>>> ture activities that aren’t scrutinised to the same degree as developments without such zones.

Mark Davy, CEO of FutureCity, said: “As cities realise the value of culture to create destination, places and to differentiate them from competitor cities, you need to have a more sophisticated relationship between planners, developers, politicians and the cultural sector. The current reality in Britain is paradoxical in nature.

At a time when the market ‘gets culture’ as a business proposition and is beginning to invest in the arts, the public sector is experiencing a downward spiral of funding with performance and cultural venues closing at an alarming rate due to ever-increasing urban rents, loss of subsidy and tightening laws and regulations.

The evidence is growing that culture helps make places, provides authenticity and experiences and promotes inclusion and collaboration.

This is in turn creates places where people want to live, work and play. Now – more than ever - planning rules and policy need to protect, nurture and encourage cultural spaces.

Without them our knowledge and creative

economies will suffer throughout the UK.”

8. Parking Cutting congestion and pollution is undermined by cheap parking which fails to force people on to public transport. Autonomous vehicles (AVs) are fast approaching, but we need to hit reverse before that to avoid the road to nowhere of city centre parking. Self-driving cars, like the growing army of cyclists seen in some cities, will change the way traffic flows.

But it’s not the rapid technological advances around AVs that mean we need to scrap current parking policy. It’s the critical need to cut emissions and congestion as cities across Britain have pollution comparable with Shanghai. Given how parking remains relatively cheap in many areas, in spite of congestion charges which do little to avert demand, driving up the cost of parking would see demand dwindle. This could not only free up large swathes of land – valuable in- fill between buildings in central urban districts – but free developers from the shackles of having to give over space for unused parking bays within their developments.

By reducing the amount of parking designated

22

Planning in London

to traditional vehicles in cities, vital land will be released for housing, public realm or cultural spaces. Also, if policy is prepared to pioneer AV technology, it will push the development of other forms of autonomous technology that have commonalities.

Britain may be behind other global leaders in robotics, but by tailoring our cities to the arrival of AVs, we can make sure that the UK benefits from the head start.

9. Finance Having a market that operates unencumbered by politicians is crucial but there are several areas where policy support has been of value and where some fundamental changes are needed.

Firstly, while it’s vital to take a prudent and controlled approach to managing risk and debt, allowing councils to borrow for investment in income-producing housing makes sense. The next government should look at structures that will enable this to be done strategically and on a regional basis. The new metro mayors should be given oversight of funding for housing and properly empowered to take decisions. Devolution must work both ways, empowering regions to make cuts and take spending decisions.

Secondly, ensuring that the financing of market rent or later living developments can be made viable depends on planning policy taking effective note of such developments function. In short, they

must recognise that they are fundamentally different from housing for sale and offer developers appropriate headroom with CIL and section 106 charges.

Thirdly, ensuring HCA funding can continue – both in support of unlocking vital infrastructure or supporting the construction phase of Build to Rent developments – is also necessary. Partnering with banks and enabling projects to come out of the ground quicker as a result can only be a good thing.

Chiara Zuccon, Head of Private Rented Sector & Director of Residential Development at RBS, said: “We have partnered with the HCA to help deliver hundreds of homes through its Build to Rent fund. Clearly there is an excellent opportunity to add to the nation’s housing supply, as universally recognised by policy at both a regional and national level. From a funding and valuation perspective, developments for rent are fundamentally different from those for sale, and planning policy should consider those differences when considering the viability of new schemes.” n ILLUSTRATIONS: Projects by Assael Architecture info@assael.co.uk/@AssaelArchitect / www.assael.co.uk

Issue 102 July-September 2017

23

BASEMENTS | CHRISTINE HEREWARD

Frocks and Ferraris – the return of mega-basements?

It would be a great pity if the huge amount of work done on appropriate controls for basement development in central London were undermined by inappropriate relaxations says Christine Hereward For those of us who focus on planning and development in central London, the issue of basement proposals has been a fascinating – and lucrative – source of work in recent years.

The additional floor-space and value of “iceberg” homes seemed to make such applications irresistible to Rich-List individuals and hard-nosed developers alike. If your target buyer is an oligarch, for a house not to have all the usual necessities (swimming pool, gym, media room, chilled fur-coat store, panic-room …) can be a real problem. There also seems to be a certain cachet about having the “biggest basement” consent in the area, even if you haven’t built it out.

On the other side of the fence, quite literally, are the neighbours. I have assisted many objectors to basement proposals, primarily in Kensington & Chelsea and Westminster. They are understandably horrified at the prospect of perhaps two years of of noise, vibration and disruption to their local roads – as well as very real concerns about damage to their own property. People regularly feel forced to move out of their home while the digging and piling goes on next door or across the road, they just cannot bear it.

Following high-levels of media interest in base-

24

Planning in London

ments, reflecting concerns of both those “living in fear” of such proposals and applicants needing certainty as to how their schemes would be assessed, Westminster and Kensington & Chelsea Councils each adopted planning policies which seek to strike the balance between allowing an extent of expansion below ground while seeking to minimise the impact on people and properties around the site.

If a development includes digging down two or three storeys, rather than just one, its impact is greatly exacerbated.

In Westminster, Policy CM28.1 of the City Plan therefore includes a prohibition (not applicable to all sites) on “the excavation of more than one storey below the lowest original floor level”, so putting the onus on the applicant to demonstrate that specified special circumstances apply.

Over in Kensington & Chelsea, if a basement forms part of a planning application it must now be assessed according to that Council’s Basements policy, CL7. One of the limbs in CL7 is “The Council will require all basement development to: … not comprise more than one storey.”

One might anticipate therefore that an application submitted to Kensington & Chelsea in 2017 and which includes two levels of basement would

Christine Hereward is a Partner and Head of Planning at Pemberton Greenish, Solicitors

be heading for a swift refusal under Delegated Powers. Apparently not.

On 14th September the Planning Committee of Kensington & Chelsea is due to consider application PP/17/01413, submitted in March, for an extension “comprising two levels of basement …” to The Orangery at Kensington Palace.

The application documents are voluminous.

They follow on from two pre-application advices, the first of which was for a single basement scheme (for some reason it was not pursued).

The Council’s second pre-app advice letter was in October last year. It stated, as one would expect, that “the Council must ensure that development complies with its basements policy CL7”. However, it continued with “or be able to identify important material planning considerations” why not.

Later in that pre-app letter one finds the following sentence “The submitted information indicates that the second basement storey would house part of the Royal Ceremonial Dress Collection. Again it is only anecdotally that full supporting information on this need has been provided and further information should be provided.”

The proposed floor plans for the extension to the Orangery show one level of the basement to be primarily offices, with the other including a Curators Store (plus a joinery workshop and furniture storage) but the majority occupied by Plan Room 1 and Plan Room 2.

The supporting documents to the planning application take on board the pre-app advice quoted above; there are several pages about the Dress Collection.

You may be wondering if Policy CL7 does not include any exceptions to the “one storey” rule. Yes, it states “Exceptions may be made on large sites“.

Kensington & Chelsea’s Local Plan explains what “large sites” means when applying CL7, “These will

!

! ! !

!

!

!

&ŝŐƵƌĞ ϭ͗ ŝƌĚƐ"ĞLJĞ ǀŝĞǁ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ KƌĂŶŐĞƌLJ ĂŶĚ ŝƚƐ ƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐƐ͕ ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐ <ĞŶƐŝŶŐƚŽŶ WĂůĂĐĞ ĂŶĚ Ă ƐŵĂůů ƉĂƌƚ ŽĨ <ĞŶƐŝŶŐƚŽŶ 'ĂƌĚĞŶƐ͕ Ă 'ƌĂĚ / ZĞŐŝƐƚĞƌĞĚ WĂƌŬ͘ !

!

!

!

!

!

&ŝŐƵƌĞ Ϯ͗ sŝĞǁ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƐŽƵƚŚĞƌŶ ĞůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ KƌĂŶŐĞƌLJ͕ ƚĂŬĞŶ ĨƌŽŵ ƚŚĞ ƐŽƵƚŚ"ǁĞƐƚ͘ !

&ŝŐƵƌĞ ϯ͗ WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ǀŝĞǁ ůŽŽŬŝŶŐ ƚŽǁĂƌĚƐ ƚŚĞ ĞĂƐƚĞƌŶ ĞůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͘ ;^ŽƵƌĐĞ͗ >ŝĂŵ K͛ ŽŶŶŽƌ ƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƐͿ!

ϯ! !

generally be new developments located in a commercial setting or of the size of an entire or substantial part of an urban block.” The Orangery dates from the 18th century - and pre-app advice also discouraged the applicants from asserting the “large sites” exception.

Now for the Ferraris. One sometimes comes across proposals where a wealthy individual wants their collection of vintage/performance vehicles within easy reach. They might need a large basement (or two) dedicated solely to their cars – but not be willing to sacrifice the swimming pool, media

room etc … Or perhaps it’s a family who spends each August in London, they have their cars flown over and need to be able to park them under their house for security reasons.

Other property owners will have particular “must-haves”. Occupiers of commercial space for example, if their presence in central London is considered important to the country’s economy, might assert “material planning considerations” warranting a relaxation of CL7.

It would be a great pity if the huge amount of work done on appropriate controls for basement

TOP: Section through proposed double basement at the Orangerie ABOVE: Photos from the Design & Access Statement LEFT: The Ferrari Museum in Modena designed by the late Jan Kaplisky of architects Future Systems:

development in central London were to be undermined by inappropriate relaxations to the principle of “one additional storey only”. The officer’s report to Kensington & Chelsea’s Committee in September promises to be an interesting read. n

Issue 102 July-September 2017

25

GREEN BELT | PETER MURRAY

The Green Belt isn’t working The Architecture Club debated this motion at at The Athenaeum Club in May. The proposition was made by Peter Murray This august institution (the Architecture Club), which in just five years will celebrate its centenary, was in the 1920s at the forefront of the debate about regional planning and the rational deployment of land and resources to create a more just and more beautiful city.

The first London Plan produced by the London Society – of which I am proud to be Chairman – in 1919, included ideas for a green belt. Architect David Barclay Niven proposed a green girdle; an ‘outer park system, or continuous garden city right round London, that would be a healthful zone of pleasure, civic interest, and enlightenment’.

In London of the Future published in 1922, Niven and Raymond Unwin, suggested two key reasons for a green belt, in keeping with the principles of Ebenezer Howard – to stop the city growing and ‘to protect its inhabitants from disease, by providing fresh air, fresh fruit and vegetables, space for recreation and contact with and knowledge of nature’.

The health and wellbeing of London’s residents, is at the top of the planning agenda today.

So why isn’t the Green Belt working?

Unwin had envisaged a mile wide green belt that would act in the same way as a city wall; today the Green Belt has spread like topsy in nimby counties.

It is nearly 40 miles from Rainham Marshes to Wallasey Island in the east, and the same from Finchley to Ampthill in the north. 23 miles from Hayes to Wargrave in the west.

The city has no edge as Unwin desired. Ask anyone where the Green belt starts. No one knows.

Why don’t we look seri- ously at Peter Barber’s 100 mile city – a street-based, linear city a hundred miles long, 200 metres wide and 4 storeys high wrapped around London.

A great idea but undeliverable under the current planning regime.

Today the NPPF states that ‘the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to safeguard the countryside’. Look at Google satellite maps and you see its main job is to safeguard golf courses – a sport whose take up has dropped by 30 per cent over the last decade as the popularity of cycling has increased. As you well know, cycling is the new golf!

It wants to preserve “setting and special character” which really means maintaining high property values by restricting development .

Don’t get me wrong. I love the Green Belt but

26

Planning in London

we need to make sure it is fit for purpose and making best use of our most important and unreplicable asset – land.

The knee jerk reaction of the protectors of green belt – even to a sensible review – is such that the debate has become so toxic that no politician will even discuss it.

The silence of politicians shows appalling timidity and feebleness.

The environment secretary Sajid Javid engendered the fury of the Prime Minister when he had the temerity to suggest land swaps in the Green Belt.

Theresa May, the member for Maidenhead, right in the heart of the Green Belt, did not take kindly to the suggestion, which was removed from the recent Housing White Paper as it went to press.

Even so, the London Green Belt Council’s interactive map shows several hundred proposals which they see as ‘threats to the green belt’.

How can this be working?

The CPRE has found that councils are proposing almost 300,000 homes on green belt around English cities.

How can this be working? On the other extreme, let’s just take one site in East London at Hainault. An area of green belt the size of the whole of the borough of Kensington and Chelsea is being used as a quarry. But cannot be used for much-needed housing.

How can this be working? Look at areas around the Elizabeth Line Stations. Common sense, let alone a sensible planning strategy, would suggest greater development around those stations would be appro- priate. Expand the green belt elsewhere to make up, if you must. But no. Can’t happen.

Peter Murray chairs New London Architecture and the London Society

How can this be working? CPRE won’t even consider releasing a small percentage of Green Belt. “Once bits are removed, the integrity is reduced and so its benefits begin to be lost.” What drivel!

We need better planning.

Planning, surely, is about the fair distribution of public assets and improvement of the quality of life of the many. The Green Belt is increasingly becoming a playground for the wealthy, whose assets are protected and enhanced by the policies of the Daily Telegraph and the National Trust.

It is high time for a proper review and a return to the prin- ciples of its founders and of this Club.

The choice tonight is simple – do you want to vote for nimbyism, selfishness, the timidity and fickleness of the politi- cal class or do you support the idea of rational and strategic planning, that through design we can make London a better place to live?

I put it to you, members of the Architecture Club, that if you have one iota of professional pride, that you should vote in support of the motion.

(The motion was well lost! – Ed.) n

COMULSORY PURCHASE AND SOCIAL HOUSING | RICHARD GUYATT AND JENNIFER HOLGATE

Delivering safe social housing By listening to communities hope and pride can be re-established in our social housing stock say Richard Guyatt and Jennifer Holgate Recent tragic events have propelled the provision of suitable and safe social housing in London to the very top of the political agenda. The hidden wounds caused by market inequalities has suddenly been horrifically exposed. The scars will not heal swiftly. Local Authorities are now in the brightest of spotlights to show that safe social housing can be developed and maintained. They must deliver answers quickly.

How does the market now provide good quality homes for a population in which renting becomes the norm but where ownership is still an aspiration?

How does the state intervene, at local and national level?

In London, the regeneration of estates, in combination with the progress of land release through the local plan process, are the key tools through which much needed housing growth can take place. As most high density estates are now a mix of social rent and leasehold properties secured through the right to buy, land assembly powers invariably need to be exercised by the local planning or local housing authority. This is usually backed up with a private sector developer and/or registered provider.

Pump priming by selling off part of the estate for commercial development is frequently seen.

The process is not without risk, and takes a long time. For instance, in September last year, Sajid Javid refused to confirm the London Borough

27

Planning in London

of Southwark's request for powers to compulsorily purchase an area of the Aylesbury Estate comprising seven residential blocks ranging from four to 14 storeys, ruling that "the interference with residents’ (in particular leaseholders’) Article 8 rights is not demonstrably necessary or proportionate, taking into account the likelihood that if the scheme is approved, it will probably force many of those concerned to move from this area".

The Secretary of State's decision has now been quashed by consent and a re-instated Mr Javid will now have to reconsider the balancing of the interests of the wider community desiring the regeneration of the Aylesbury Estate against the interests of those leaseholders who most likely will not be able to afford a home on the regenerated estate.

Right to buy, the flagship policy of the Thatcher years, for a "property owning democracy" has benefitted many. But those who exercised their right to buy in estates like Aylesbury could never force Councils to maintain the social housing around their homes, and the Councils were denied the resource to do so . As local authorities have been unable to maintain the social housing elements of estates, the market has stripped right to buy owners of the benefits they expected and which their near neighbours outside of the estates have experienced. It has also inevitably led to the eroding of councils' housing stock.

Richard Guyatt is a partner with law firm Bond Dickinson

Jennifer Holgate is a managing associate with Bond Dickinson

The second Aylesbury decision is clearly one to watch. How the Secretary of State preserves market value as the lynchpin of CPO compensation, without admitting that on some estates at least the right to buy policy has been severely dented by decades of underfunding of social housing, will require huge political skill.

In the shadow of the debate around the first Aylesbury decision, the uncertainty surrounding the use of compulsory purchase powers pervades from both sides – from policy making right the way >>>

COMULSORY PURCHASE AND SOCIAL HOUSING | RICHARD GUYATT AND JENNIFER HOLGATE

PREVIOUS PAGE: Aylesbury Estate

by GLC architects BELOW: Proposed renewal at Aylesbury

by HTA Design, architects

>>> through to the decision making process. Both the Conservatives and Labour pledged changes to the regime in their 2017 election manifestos; the Conservatives stated they would "reform Compulsory Purchase Orders to make them easier and less expensive for councils to use and to make it easier to determine the true market value of sites", whilst Labour will "update compulsory purchase powers to make them more effective as a tool to drive regeneration".

Whilst both acknowledge some form of "reform" or "update" is required, there are now more urgent calls on the Government to drive through those changes through the implementation of the housing white paper. Alok Sharma - the new Planning Minister - is now being urged by various housing industry bodies to take forward those changes as quickly as possible. With a scaled back legislative programme focused on Brexit, the timescales and the eventual result of any such changes are still unknown.

The negotiation surrounding regeneration and the tools available to local authorities in order to effect change now of course includes an entirely different dimension following Grenfell Tower. In London over 100 estates are earmarked for demolition. Local communities must be, and will

28

Planning in London

demand to be, listened to. Communities may wish to remain where they are, to see money invested in refurbishing the existing property in which occupiers reside, or require lower height developments.

This will mean a need for space for housing at ground level now unachievable in a tightly packed metropolis constrained by its greenbelt.

Following Lakanal House and the evacuation of the Grade II* Listed Trellick Tower after the start of a fire in February this year, decisions regarding existing estates potentially earmarked for regeneration now require policies of safety first, social inclusion and full community engagement. All this must be constrained by a realism as to what can be afforded, or the opening up of new funding streams.

At the other end of the planning process, land release through the local plan process is proving contentious and difficult to navigate. As Councils such as Redbridge are currently experiencing, all land being released from the greenbelt or being allocated for development in London is being actively scrutinised by third parties. Options are limited for delivery, which makes the regeneration debate even more pronounced and how best local authorities can utilise space for residential development most effectively.

The market is without doubt preventing social housing reform – land is unaffordable for new schemes and properties in tired estates cannot attract a value to enable leaseholders in those estates to secure a replacement property. The changes to the rules for assessing compensation in the Neighbourhood Planning Act will further exacerbate the problem in London as acquiring authorities learn to use the new rules to further suppress market value. Positions will become polarised and regeneration schemes will become mired in challenges, increasing uncertainty and perpetuating substandard market conditions.

It is time for the planning professions to offer solutions to break the increasingly vicious (and now fatal) cycle of underinvestment in, and disparity of, housing stock in our capital city. This can only be achieved by listening to and engaging with communities and providing real, well-funded solutions that allow communities to thrive. It is essential to not thrust answers on those inhabiting our poorest estates.

Through listening to the communities, and using the positive planning powers available to local authorities, we must show vision and leadership, and above all show that hope and pride can be re-established on our social housing stock. n

ANDY ROGERS

What’s democracy got to do with it?

At the beginning of the year, just before publication of the Housing White Paper and Liz Peace’s highly critical CIL report, a ripple of concern emerged when the Local Government Information Unit (LGiU) produced a survey, commissioned by the National Trust, which found that almost three-quarters of the 1,200 ward councillors in England that were surveyed believe the planning system is undemocratic, being too weighted in favour of developers at the expense of local communities.

Aside from the observation that the National Trust is hardly a democratic organisation (and whether democracy is as important as proper drains anyway), this begs the question of whether the planning system is supposed to be democratic at all. Given that democracy is defined in my dictionary as “government by all the people…”, the idea that planning decisions should be voted on by everyone is clearly unworkable. The key to understanding democracy is the second part of the definition “…usually through elected representatives”.

So what the ward councillors are concerned about is whether they, as elected representatives, have proper control over planning decisions within the planning system as it currently operates. And the question we need to ask is whether they should have.

Such considerations are highly topical - it has been pointed out that youngsters between the ages of 18 and 22 have had the opportunity to vote on five major issues in the last four years, while before 2013 we had to wait more than twenty years to vote five times.

Lenin wrote in 1919 that democracy is not identical with majority rule, but rather is a system that recognises the subjection of the minority by the majority - a way of forcing the decisions of one part of the population against another. Which in my view seems to describe the planning system as it now operates (not to mention being an excellent summary of the Referendum result). In practical terms, development control is exercised by unelected officers who are answerable ultimately to elected councillors. Some of these councillors also do have direct responsibility (albeit limited and dwin-

dling) for many - but not all - key local planning decisions.

However the system is certainly more complex than that and is becoming less “democratic” at a local level as government incrementally removes control from elected representatives and passes it over to neighbourhoods*, or to individuals through permitted development. And this is without the intermittent but far-reaching intervention of the judiciary, when it interprets planning law which has been enacted by elected representatives at a higher level. Indeed, the Supreme Court has only recently told everyone “to be less legalistic about the way we frame our arguments as to the application of national and local policies to development proposals” (Simon Ricketts writing in The Planner) in its judgment concerning the five-year housing land supply of local authorities.

So the answer to the question posed by the LGiU survey: is the planning system undemocratic? must be yes - and so it should be to work effectively. We have in the planning system at present a typically British compromise between monolithic and comprehensive planning as might be practised in an undemocratic dictatorship and the freefor-all that existed before the Housing Act in 1909 or the first Town and Country Planning Act of 1932. Indeed, the planning system today encompasses such a wide range of decision-makers, from the Inspector at a public inquiry to the over-worked and inexperienced geography graduate acting as a planning officer and from the local councillor following a party whip to the private consultant well-versed in permitted development rules, as to be incomprehensible in terms of “democracy”. The question is surely irrelevant.

And this is without any consideration of the politics of planning. In February 2017 a report from The Housing Forum suggested that part of the current housing crisis is due to the interference of local councillors in the planning process. It recommended: “Housing should be depoliticised. Take party politics out of housing strategy and delivery by creating cross-party housing groups and removing elected members from decision making…

Think of what our Nation stands for, Books from Boots’ and country lanes, Free speech, free passes, class distinction, Democracy and proper drains.

– John Betjeman 1940

” So much for democracy!

Readers of my last column will know that in November 1968 the Architectural Review noted (with reference to what is now the M25) that a motorway fed by nine others, as well as many main roads, would not be able to cope with the amount of traffic expected.

Its instigators, the GLC Department of Highways and Transport, admitted that proper studies were not carried out due to limited resources of money and staff. The AR editorial added: "assignments published in Vol. 2 of the London Traffic Survey suggest that the volume of traffic trying to use the box [as it was then called] will be three or four times greater than its capacity" and concluded "this is too big a project to allow it to go forward on the basis of the GLC's 'say-so'". But go ahead it did.

Was that a democratic decision? Should it have been? Is the GLA (GLC) an effective democratic body? I suggest the answer to such questions is that, while the planning system is nominally part of our complex democratic government, the bodies that administer it are only partly democratic. And therein lies a fundamental contradiction of the planning system as it exists.

E S White declared in 1944 that “Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time.” I don’t propose to comment on whether planning decisions are right more than half of the time, but I do conclude that the planning system is not truly democratic - and therefore works better for that. n

* Is Localism and Neighbourhood Planning a New Democracy? [see my next article].

All the ills of democracy can be cured by more democracy. – Alfred Smith, 1933

Issue 102 July-September 2017

29

BRIEFING | PLANNING PERFORMANCE

Nearly everything up by four per cent!

Latest planning performance by English districts and London boroughs: Planning Applications in England: January to March 2017 OVERVIEW Local planning authorities in England: • received 123,300 applications for planning permission, up three per cent on the corresponding quarter of 2016; • granted 89,500 decisions, up four per cent from the same quarter in 2016; this is equivalent to 87 per cent of decisions, one percentage point down from the same quarter of 2016; • decided 87 per cent of major applications within 13 weeks or the agreed time, up from 83 per cent a year earlier; • granted 12,300 residential applications, up nine per cent on a year earlier: 1,700 for major developments and 10,600 for mi- nors, up on the same quarter of 2016 by 17 and eight per cent respectively; • granted 2,600 applications for commercial developments, down two per cent on a year earlier; and • received 9,200 applications for prior approval for permitted development rights, up two per cent from the same quarter of 2016. Of these, 1,400 applications were for changes to resi- dential use, of which 1,000 were approved without having to go through the full planning process.

In the year ending March 2017, district level planning authorities:

30

Planning in London

• granted 386,000 decisions, up four per cent from the figure for the year ending March 2016; • granted 50,100 decisions on residential developments: 6,600 for major developments and 43,500 for minors, up on the year ending March 2016 by 12 per cent and six per cent respectively; and • granted 11,200 applications for commercial developments, down one per cent on the year ending March 2016.

Planning applications During January to March 2017, authorities undertaking district level planning in England received 123,300 applications for planning permission, up three per cent on the corresponding quarter in 2016. In the year ending March 2017, authorities received 486,500 planning applications, up three per cent from 474,500 in the year ending March 2016 Planning decisions Authorities reported 102,300 decisions on planning applications in January to March 2017, an increase of four per cent on the 98,400 decisions in the same quarter of the previous year. In the year ending March 2017, authorities decided 439,600 planning applications, an increase of

four per cent compared to the year ending March 2016 Applications granted During January to March 2017, authorities granted 89,500 decisions, up four per cent from the same quarter in 2016. Authorities granted 87 per cent of all decisions, down one percentage point from the March quarter 2016. Overall, 83 per cent of major and minor decisions were granted.

The percentage of decisions granted varied widely between local planning authorities, ranging from 0 to 100 per cent for major developments, 46 to 100 per cent for minor developments and 59 to 100 per cent for other developments. Over the 12 months to March 2017, 386,000 decisions were granted, up four per cent from the year to March 2016.

Speed of decisions In January to March 2017, 87 per cent of major applications were decided within 13 weeks or within the agreed time for Planning Performance Agreements (PPAs), Extensions of Time (EoTs) and Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), compared with 83 per cent in the March quarter 2016.

In the March quarter of 2017, 85 per cent of minor applications and 90 per cent of other applications were decided within eight weeks or the agreed time. These figures show increases, compared with 78 per cent and 86 per cent a year earlier respectively.

The percentage of decisions made in time varied widely between local planning authorities, ranging from 0 to 100 per cent for major developments, 8 to 100 per cent for minor developments and 29 to 100 per cent for other developments.

Because deciding an application on time can include the use of a performance agreement, the calculation of the proportion of decisions made within the agreed time was changed to include PPAs from April 2008 for major and some ‘other’ developments, and to also include agreed EoTs and EIAs from April 2013.

Applications since April 2014 for minor devel-

RIGHT: Number of planning applications received, decided and granted by district level planning authorities

opments and for changes of use, householder developments and advertisements can now also be recorded as having included a performance agreement.

Because the most consistent reporting of agreements is for major applications, Figure 2 and Table 2 show, from 2008, numbers of decisions on major developments made involving a performance agreement, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of all decisions on major developments. Notwithstanding these definitional changes, there has been a marked increase in the use of agreements since early 2013, although the increases have slowed down in recent quarters. In reality, this has been driven by both the additional scope for recording them and their additional use. The proportion of major decisions subject to an agreement was 60 per cent during January to March 2017, up from 24

Planning decisions by development type, speed of decision and local planning authority: January to March 2017 Table 131 can be found with all tables and figures here: https://goo.gl/dSYdtv Source: CLG/ONS >>>

>>>

Issue 102 July-September 2017

31

BRIEFING | PLANNING PERFORMANCE

>>> per cent in the January to March quarter of 2014.

Figure 3 and Reference Table 2 show that in the March quarter of 2017, 91 per cent of major development decisions involving performance agreements were made on time. In comparison, 83 per cent of major decisions not involving performance agreements were made within the statutory time limit of 13 weeks.

Performance of individual district level local planning authorities Live Tables P151a and P153 present data on the performance of district level local planning authorities against the published criterion in Improving planning performance: criteria for designation on the speed of decision-making for informing decisions on the designation of poorly performing local planning authorities under section 62B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

In par- ticular, Live Table P151a gives detailed figures for the time taken for major decisions to be made over the eight most recent quarters and Live Table P153 presents data for the time taken by district level local planning authorities for decisions on ‘non-major developments’ (previously ‘minor and other developments’, and defined as minor developments, changes of use and householder developments) to be made over the eight

32

Planning in London

most recent quarters.

Similarly, Live Table P152a, presents data on the performance of district level local planning authorities against the published criterion in Improving planning performance: criteria for designation on the quality of decision-making for assessing performance under section 62B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In particular, it gives detailed figures for the percentage of major deci- sions subject to a successful planning appeal, by matching eight quarters of the department’s data on decisions and all available quarters of Planning Inspectorate data on appeals. This table is usually published a few weeks after the statistical release and most of the other live tables, to take account of the latest appeals data.

Live Table P154 presents data for the percentage of decisions on minor and other developments (as defined for Table P153) subject to a successful planning appeal, by matching eight quarters of the department’s data on decisions and all available quarters of Planning Inspectorate data on appeals. Like Table P152a, this table is usually published a few weeks after the statistical release and most of the other live tables, to take account of the latest appeals data.

Residential decisions The figures collected by the department are numbers of decisions on planning applications

submitted to local planning authorities rather than the number of units included in each application, such as the number of homes in the case of housing developments.

The Department supplements this information by obtaining statistics on housing permissions from a contractor. The latest figures show that permission for 304,000 homes was given in the rolling year to 31 March 2017, compared to a revised figure of 281,000 homes granted permission in the rolling year to 31 December 2016.3 The number of homes granted permission during the rolling year to 31 March 2017 was 15 per cent higher than in the rolling year to 31 March 2016.

Figures for previous quarters are revised to ensure that any duplicates are removed, and also to include any projects that local planning authorities may not have processed: they are therefore subject to change. These figures are provided to give contextual information, and have not been designated as National Statistics.

Regarding the figures reported by local planning authorities to the Department on PS1/2 returns, in January to March 2017, 16,600 decisions were made on applications for residential 4 developments, of which 12,300 (74 per cent) were granted. The total number of residential decisions made increased by ten per cent from the March quarter 2016, with the number granted increasing by nine per cent. The number of major residential

decisions granted increased by 17 per cent to 1,700 whereas the number of minor residential decisions granted increased by eight per cent, to 10,600. In the year ending March 2017, authorities granted, 6,600 major and 43,500 minor residential applications, up by 12 and six per cent respectively on the year ending March 2016.

Commercial decisions In January to March 2017, 2,800 decisions were made on applications for commercial developments, of which 2,600 (92 per cent) were granted. The total number of commercial decisions remained broadly stable on the same quarter of 2016. In the year ending March 2017, 11,200 appli- cations for commercial developments were granted, down one per cent on the year ending March 2016.

Trends in residential and commercial decisions Historically, numbers of major and minor residential decisions dropped sharply during 2008 (particularly for minor decisions) but have been increasing since 2012. Numbers of commercial decisions made decreased sharply during last recession, and have since stabilised at around 2,100 per year for major and 11,000 per year for minor commercial developments. In 2016/17 numbers of minor commercial decisions were at about 44 per cent of the pre-recession peak, with the numbers of major developments being at about 62 per cent.

The percentages of major and minor residential decisions granted increased between 2008/09 (from about 65 per cent for each type) and 2010/11 to about 80 per cent for majors and about 75 per cent for minors, and have stabilised since then. The percentages of major and minor commercial decisions granted have been increasing steadily, from 88 and 86 per cent respectively in 2008/09, to 94 and 91 per cent respectively in 2016/17.

Householder developments Householder developments are those developments to a house which require planning permission such as extensions, loft conversions and conservatories (more details are in the Definitions section). The number of decisions on householder developments increased by five per cent, from 48,000 decisions in the March quarter of 2016 to 50,300 decisions in the corresponding quarter in 2017, when they accounted for 49 per cent of all decisions. Authorities granted 90 per cent of these applications and decided 92 per cent within eight weeks or the agreed time.

Prior approvals for permitted developments Following the creation in May 2013 of some additional permitted development right cate-

gories (see the Definitions section) and consultation with local authorities, the department increased the level of detailed information on prior approvals for permitted developments collected on the PS1 return with effect from 1 April 2014.

The results for the twelfth quarter for which they have been collected (January to March 2017) are included in Live Tables PDR1 (local authority level figures) and PDR2 (England totals). Of the 9,200 applications reported in the January to March quarter of 2017, prior approval was not required for 5,000, and permission was granted for 2,400 and refused for 1,800. This resulted in an overall acceptance rate6 of 80 per cent. 71 per cent of applications (6,500) related to larger householder extensions, with seven per cent relating to office to residential changes and also seven per cent relating to agricultural to residential changes.

Taking i) granted applications and ii) those for which prior approval was not required together, 7,400 applications were approved without having to go through the full planning process, unchanged on a year earlier .

Within an overall increase of two per cent in the reported total number of applications between January and March 2016 and January and March 2017: Larger householder extensions increased by four per cent and Office to residential changes dropped by 11 per cent; and agricultural to residential changes dropped by 11 per cent. Changes made to the PS1 return from 1 October 2016 have made it possible to identify the total number of permitted development right applications made for changes to residential use.

Figures for this are given in Live Table PDR1, which show that a total of 1,400 applications for changes to residential use were reported in January to March 2017, of which 1,000 (72 per cent) were

approved without having to go through the full planning process.

The overall acceptance rate for the twelve quarters between the collection of detailed data started in April 2014 and the end of March 2017 is 82 per cent. The rate initially dropped from 85 per cent in the quarter ending June 2014 to 79 per cent in the quarter ending December 2014. In 2015 and 2016 the acceptance rate stabilised at around 82 per cent and was 80 per cent in the quarter ending March 2017. Overall during the twelve quarters ending March 2017, district planning authorities reported 118,800 applications for prior approvals for permitted developments. For 67,900 (57 per cent) of them prior approval was not required, 29,000 (24 per cent) were granted and 21,800 (18 per cent) were refused.

To put these recent figures into context, Live Table P128 and Figure 7 show how the number of determination applications received remained broadly stable at around 5,000 to 8,000 per year from 2004/05 to 2012/13, but approximately doubled to 15,700 in 2013/14, following the creation of the new permitted development right categories in May 2013.

Since then, there have been 36,500 applications in 2014/15, 41,000 in 2015/16 and 41,300 in 2016/17. The quarterly pattern since April 2014 reflects a combination of both: i) the introduction of new permitted development right categories in May 2013 and April 2015; and ii) the seasonal peaks and troughs that have previously also been observed for planning applications, as shown earlier in this release, in Figure 1.

This significant increase in numbers of applications appears to be consistent with the annual increases in the number of dwellings added to the net housing supply through change of use of 65 per cent and 48 per cent during 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively. n

Issue 102 July-September 2017

33

NEIL PARKYN

Snake Oil or substance?

Neil Parkyn ruminates on presentations or "Here’s one I prepared earlier…”

It’s always perilous to quote ancient material from ‘Monty Python ’ because the thrill of recognition extends only to those of a certain age.

Undaunted by this time warp I happily refer back to their ‘Exploding Model’ routine, in which a nervous architect, played by John Cleese, presents an architectural model to councillors at the Borough Planning Committee.

He starts well enough, taking the members through the proposed layout of their community centre, or whatever, but then he points out something rather more challenging "…and here they pass through the Rotating Knives…” a disturbing prospect for at least one councillor present (Terry Jones). Shortly afterwards, the model explodes, spewing smoke and flames. Cleese is by now 100 per cent supine. "I only wanted to join the Masons in Hendon” he finally grovels.

Most presentations do not finish as badly. In our enlightened times, even junior staff can make a fair fist of a Powerpoint, or decide the colours for floor plans, even supply Fake News in the form of manufactured local history to support the genetic heritage of your site. Others present may recall happy Sunday School afternoons with the ’Flannelgraph’, illustrating the Fiery Furnace or the Last Supper.

Odious comparisons Slice it any which way, the ‘art’ of Presentation remains a territory of considerable risk for the promoter and, equally, for the professional or lay audience. After all, a few deftly crafted items on a presentation model will represent serious money once the project has jumped this hurdle.

Neil Parkyn is a retired architect-planner living in France. A former member of the RTPI and RSA Councils, he was a director of Colin Buchanan and Partners.

He has written a guide, "Graphic Presentations” for RIBA Publications.

(AKA ‘Monsieur le Parc‘– see letter, RIGHT)

34

Planning in London

However, there are ways in which even the architectural equivalent of Snake Oil can be sold to an audience. These bear closer examination, and not only as a note of warning. For starters, it’s as well to understand that very few laymen, even the professional worthies on the planning committee, can actually understand Drawings.

They are loathe to admit it, but it’s the rule rather than the exception. Admittedly it is VERY difficult to judge Scale…a paper presentation will seldom refer back to familiar benchmarks ….you might be told that this part of the proposal is 35 times the length of a London bus, or that 40 football pitches can easily be fitted into the Central Space. The mind boggles: do 30 pitches really seem so much less than 40? How could they muster so many teams etc?

Or that elusive matter of interrelationships. It is well nigh impossible for a lay audience to fathom the actual distances between, say, two living room windows facing each other on a plan. By presenting a site layout phase-by-phase you avoid your audience twigging that these living rooms are indeed very close neighbours and privacy comes down to those John Lewis blinds, but at the expense of daylight.

Top models Arms can all too easily be twisted. I well remember a presentation in China where all the drawings were bordered by bright flowers merging into the site itself, where Standard Heroic Peoples’ Factory #190 hid shyly. Or the occasion when the late President of Lebanon was in great

LETTERS

I would urge Monsieur le Parc (see LEFT) to hop on Eurostar while the exchange rate is still favourable and appreciate the true vitality of the noble art of Présentation says Stephen Heath Sir, On the day after the absurd debacle of the election, I am sitting in dappled sunlight outside Café Cordon Bleu in Pied Bull Yard, that carefully crafted bit of early 80s townscape in Bloomsbury Square's back passage. I am enjoying a chocolat frappé avec financier in celebration of the wise rejection by Brexitania's electorate of Auntie May's departure non-plan. It is perhaps an appropriate time to reflect on the communiqué just received by the Editorial Office from Monsieur Le Parc, your esteemed correspondent across La Manche, on the noble art of Présentation. Irritated by the narrative I was reading, this is what I began to scribble on a chocolate smeared napkin.

In his anecdotal analysis, Monsieur le Parc neatly

side steps many other tools in the vast armoury of strategic assets available to the communicator. For, let's face it, communication is THE process whereby a proposal for managing change passes through the planning system. Be it strategy, policy or development proposal, to regard it solely as the presentation of drawings, images, models or words intended to skilfully re-wrap reality as something else is as shallow an analysis as portraying Brexitania's departure from the EU as either 'hard' or 'soft'. It may be appealing to the popular press to neatly classify ideologies under minimalist headings but it is by no means a realistic portrayal of the complexities of the real world and not something your esteemed journal should be endorsing.

Of course, what Monsieur Le Parc fails to acknowledge in his humorursly crafted treatise is the background rationale and the importance now placed by that respected authority, The National Planning Policy Framework, on communication between all stakeholders in the planning process. It is 'engagement' not a 'presentation' strategy that is sought. We can whinge about the terminology but the oft ignored reference to this is to be found hiding in paragraphs 188-191of the document, under the jargon-rich heading 'Pre-application engagement and

front loading'. It is economically short on words and I would urge Monsieur Le Parc to familiarise himself with its content one evening with his favourite glass ou deux of vin Nicolas.

What is important to recognise is that to communicate successfully you have to engage with / present to your audience using the most appropriate tools. Understand the people, understand their interests and target your presentation in a way that reflects their interests. Design and creative thinking is not part of the core curriculum in schools so you have to work hard to communicate. There is, for example, no point in pointing to a model made of distressed cornflake packets and liquorice to a generation brought up on a rich diet of HR video streaming and immersive VR. Archigram used magazines; others actually built to present their utopian visions as in Portmeirion and Poundbury - real touchy, feely stuff.

Unwind... Jane Jacobs in her seminal work The Death and Life of Great American Cities, stopped the plan-making professions in their tracks in 1961 when she commented: "There is no logic that can be superimposed on the city; people make it, and it is to them, not buildings, that we must fit our plans." Real places have to be owned by the public and made by the public. So we need to communicate: we need to

>>> personal danger of pouring his iced Pepsi over our model. At the same time, there remains great faith in a model’s persuasive power. Somewhere in our psyche is a wish to believe that a model of a building is actually the building itself, only smaller. It is surely only a matter of placing your model on a giant 3D copier, push the button… and your building is ready for use. Hence those cosy encounters between Adolf Hitler (himself a failed student of architecture) and his dedicated amanuensis Dr Albert Speer, around and even inside the enormous model of the New Berlin which was to arise from the ashes –literally – of the Old. Other presentation folk will turn to the magic toybox of computer visuals, perhaps emboldened by the achievements of their children in the hideously complicated universe of ‘Minecraft’ (don’t ask!). The possibilities are indeed daunting.

Early on in the game, computer whizzes at the office where I still persevered with pen, paper and T-square, managed to conjure up a two minute

video sequence taking the viewers of ITV’s News at Ten from an aerial view of London down through the City to St Paul’s and then on into the atrium of the planned HQ of a Big Name in Banking. It stopped just short of the Post-It notes on someone’s (future) desk ! Conversely, too much clever stuff and you are even more vulnerable to total blankness as the presentation fails to unload and the lights come up to reveal rather personal discussions among the project team.

Historical notes.

Old hands stick to what they know, to the dark arts of rhetoric and a way with words. They will ease into the Presentation with informal but well rehearsed references to the Project Area … “I notice with sadness that the Fish n’Chip shop celebrated in ‘Anna of the Five Towns’ is no more and that the Old Forge is now a themed wine bar.." Some presenters believe one has to go further in the pursuit of credibility. I was even once advised by a wise veteran.. “If you are up for a job

in an Historic Naval Dockyard, find out which ships the selection panel has once commanded.”

Elsewhere, it can be moving and effective to produce a book of poems from your pocket and read the relevant stanzas, but without attempting the dialect.

A further Cunning Plan is to select avatars of your target audience. Think well dressed, purposeful Young People in the foreground and the correct representation of racial groups, right–and–left handedness and median height.

Gone are the mothers with prams, children with skipping ropes and men with Samsonite briefcases. You are trying to encapsulate visually the concept of a Just and Fair Society with the goal of bringing out the best in all of us. Just get on with it!

Behind it all lies the magic of presentation/persuasion. It‘s worth remembering that a one-time partner of a leading firm of shopping centre architects was also an elected Member of the Magic Circle. Zone –A retail? Watch the board! n

Issue 102 July-September 2017

35

LETTERS

RIGHT: ‘Only Connect’ by Tony Meats (see ¡Pillo!)

understand people, inform people and listen to people. Interactions with people are essential in creating dialogue.

To me, this was evidenced most dramatically when Bloomsbury, 'one of the last villages in London,’ was threatened with demolition to make way for the British Library in the early 70s. Its residents drew, wrote and presented their way out of plans to demolish their quintessential urban village, home to more than 600 people in a diverse and eclectic mix of historic buildings. Eventually, after a long and vocal campaign to save Bloomsbury’s community, the government bowed to local pressure and chose to site the new British Library building in St Pancras.

Today, the word protest is often associated with various forms of violence or disorder, but during the heady 70s the community in Bloomsbury understood it differently and, in response to the proposals, the Bloomsbury Association was formed. With professional support, the Association’s first chair George Wagner wrote letters to newspapers, national institutions, councillors and members of government. Their involvement brought about many studies both for and against the plans. Local residents organised concerts and events, and instigated the annual summer Bloomsbury Fair. It was a process of communication and 'anti-presentation' in a multitude of forms. In similar circumstances, things were happening all around London at this time: most famously in Covent Garden and on Coin Street. The current exhibition at the RIBA 'Circling the Square' charts the emergence of SAVE to orchestrate the anti-presentations surrounding development proposals by Mies van der Rohe for Mansion House Square, which ultimately led to James Stirling's Number One Poultry. This is an exhibition that demonstrates emerging presentation techniques over three decades, including intervention

by HRH, the Royal Fine Arts Commission and TV documentaries. I would strongly urge Monsieur Le Parc to visit this and reconsider his somewhat superficial view.

There is an increasing importance in understanding this type of engagement in terms of planning.

“There are too few occasions within urbanism that a community’s actions have led to a better architectural/urban solution,” said Janet Hall in her research paper for Cambridge University. “The situation in Bloomsbury is particularly unusual because the solution found was not the alteration of a proposed proj-

36

Planning in London

ect but its total relocation and total conservation of an area. The public influenced to a lesser extent the architectural scale, but more significantly affected decision making on a wider-urban scale from their local level – an ambition laid out by the 2011 Localism Act.” In subsequent decades a huge business has grown up to manage the process of information exchange with people and, in particular, with people who have influence and power. With the rise of professionalised presentation, these community fixers or political lobbyists, on the one side, with community activists on the other, use hard sell techniques, including presentation skills a plenty, to 'sell' their products through a carefully targeted process of community engagement. Street wise communities will use similar techniques to challenge them - the anti-presentation.

But we did not learn. Jane Jacobs went on to say "Artist's conceptions' and persuasive renderings can put pictures of life into proposed neighbourhood parks or park malls, and verbal rationalizations can conjure up users who ought to appreciate them, but in real life only diverse surroundings have the practical power of inducing a natural, continuing flow of life and use." And that is the crux of the problem: the change makers cannot assimilate themselves into the minds of those who will be affected by that change, be it in central or local government, business or residential communities, plan makers, plan reviewers or plan determinators. They have to understand 'how it affects me' because otherwise it has no meaning. The proposed change has to have the support of the people it will affect otherwise it will fail.

Achieving this by communicating information

through drawings is only a very small part of that story. I have recently dusted off the cobwebs from drawings I prepared for the late Graeme Shankland as part of a public consultation exercise carried out on proposals for the creation in Hammersmith of what was then a new concept, imported from urban America like those of Jane Jacobs: a transport hub.

So it went through its process of presentation, exhibition, publicity and consultation... and failed.

Then came Foster who did the same, then Farrells who did the same, then EPR who did the same but somehow the Monopoly dice fell right and they managed to get theirs past 'Go'. All had presentation skills but some failed to communicate. This will feature as yet another presentation: an exhibition of all the presentations for Hammersmith Broadway over another three decades being organised by the RIBA's branch of West London Architects for this year's London Festival of Architecture. Again, I would urge Monsieur le Parc to hop on Eurostar while the exchange rate is still favourable and appreciate the true vitality of the noble art of Présentation.

Respectfully yours,

Stephen Heath Stephen Heath is an Architect and Urban Designer and member of the Bloomsbury Association. He is a frequent reader and occasional contributor to Planning in London and The Bloomsbury Bungle and is modestly good at colouring in.

Acknowledgement: How people power saved Bloomsbury from destruction, Janet Hall, University of Cambridge, Architecture and Urban Design Research Paper, 2014. n

¡ PILLO!

© Avery Associates Architects Planning in London exclusive

In the spirit of PLAYBOY A few readers may recall that Playboy magazine used to run readers’ letters both inside the front and the back covers. It was sometimes noticed that the letters at the back of the magazine were responding to those at the front. This confirmed the suspicion that the the editors were writing to themselves!

In that honourable tradition Stephen Heath (see LEFT) has been leaked Neil Parkyn’s column in this and our last issue, so allowing him to respond rather more promptly than you might reasonably expect.

Further letters responding to Stephen’s response are welcome. They will not be written by the editor. Promise.

Memories of Shankland/Cox The painting of the ‘wobbly bridge’ on the left is one of a lovely and extensive collection of watercolours by the late Tony Meats, onetime partner at Shankland/Cox. His sensitive drawings illuminat-

ed many planning, new town and tourism development studies, not least the conservation plan for Hampstead Garden Suburb for which your editor was a young team leader!

Sarah Meats conjoured up a delightful Shankland/Cox reunion in their home-gallery in Taplow village recently when we were allowed to buy one of Tony’s proliferation of paintings.

That illustrated here was not for sale and is titled ‘Only Connect’, the name suggested by Tony’s long-time painting companion Nigel Woolner.

Memories of Bryan Avery Bryan Avery has died after a short illness. He wrote about a London spaceport in the last issue (page 68) and he collaborated with Brian Waters and Michael Schabas on the airport commission submission, ‘Take Crossrail to Stansted’ (PiL 83, October 2012) which incorporated his muchpublished polemic ‘Wilderness City’, an inspired idea for evolving a new town.

Described by Peter Rees, former City Architect, in the AJ tribute as ‘The thinking man’s architect’, Bryan is best known for his iMax at

Waterloo, the Museum of the Moving Image, the London Transport Museum at Covent Garden and the RADA theatre.

Recently he has been working with Brian Waters on plans to improve the pedestrian experience and the infrastructure along the City frontage of the Thames and just last month produced this image suggesting a riparian location for the proposed City concert hall.

He has left ten volumes of his delightful sketches and drawings to be published by his daughter Katie. See his Guardian obit at: https://goo.gl/F1WNvj

Stripey house OK says judge Our planning system knows how to prolong a farce.

In the famous owner-protest of painting her conservation area facade in provocative red and white stripes Mr Justice Gilbert said: "In my judgment, to allow a local planning authority to use section 215 to deal with questions of aesthetics, as opposed to disrepair or dilapidation, falls outside the intention and spirit of the Planning Code". n

Issue 102 July-September 2017

37

Save on This Forthcoming Title!

Public Consultation and Community Involvement in Planning A twenty-first century guide Penny Norton Consult Online and Martin Hughes 1PMJUZ

July 2017: 234x156: 410pp 45 illustrations Hb: 978-1-138-68014-2 | £95.00 Pb: 978-1-138-68015-9 | £34.99 eBook: 978-1-315-56366-4

TABLE OF CONTENTS: List of figures; Foreword; Preface ; Acknowledgements ; Chapter 1 Introduction; Part One: the context of consultation today Chapter 2 A Brief History of Community Engagement in Planning ; Chapter 3 The Political Climate for Community Engagement Today; Chapter 4 Societal Change and Consultation; Chapter 5 The Impact of the Internet on Consultation; Part Two: the planning process Chapter 6 The Planning Process and the Role of Consultation; Chapter 7 The Formulation of a Local Plan; Chapter 8 Neighbourhood Planning; Chapter 9 Localism and New Community Rights; Chapter 10 The Process of a Planning Application ; Chapter 11 The role of local authorities in considering and determining planning applications; Chapter 12 Appeals and Public Inquiries ; Chapter 13 Consulting on a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP); Part Three: communications strategy and tactics Chapter 14 Strategy Development; Chapter 15 Tactics to Inform and Engage; Chapter 16 New Consultation Tactics ; Chapter 17 Analysis, Evaluation and Feedback; Chapter 18 Reducing Risk in Consultation; Part Four: post planning Chapter 19 Community Relations During Construction ; Chapter 20 Community Involvement Following Construction ; Chapter 21 Conclusion ; Appendix 1 Timeline of political events impacting on consultation ; Appendix 2 Examples of material and non material planning considerations; Appendix 3 Community involvement strategy outline; Appendix 4 Sample Content for Consultation Websites User Guides; Glossary ; Further reading; Index;

1VCMJD $POTVMUBUJPO BOE $PNNVOJUZ *OWPMWFNFOU JO 1MBOOJOH JT UIF EFGJOJUJWF JOUSPEVDUJPO UP QVCMJD DPOTVMUBUJPO GPS EFWFMPQFST TUVEFOUT BOE QMBOOFST 5IF QBTU EFDBEF IBT TFFO B DPNQMFUF USBOTGPSNBUJPO JO DPOTVMUBUJPO BOE DPNNVOJUZ SFMBUJPOT JO UIF 6, GSPN JODSFBTFE SFRVJSFNFOUT UP DPOTVMU UP UIF JOUSPEVDUJPO PG /FJHICPVSIPPE 1MBOOJOH BOE B SFWPMVUJPO JO POMJOF DPNNVOJDBUJPO 1SPQFSUZ $POTVMUBUJPO BOE $PNNVOJUZ &OHBHFNFOU UBLFT SFBEFST UISPVHI DPOTVMUBUJPO GSPN UIF CBTJDT SJHIU UISPVHI UP FNFSHJOH USFOET UP EFNPOTUSBUF IPX B TVDDFTTGVM DPOTVMUBUJPO QSPDFTT DBO CFOFGJU CPUI UIF EFWFMPQFST BOE UIF MPDBM DPNNVOJUZ 5IF CPPL CFHJOT XJUI B EFGJOJUJPO PG DPOTVMUBUJPO BOE DPNNVOJUZ FOHBHFNFOU BOE BO FYQMBOBUJPO PG UIFJS SPMF XJUIJO UIF EFWFMPQNFOU QSPDFTT CFGPSF HPJOH PO UP DMBSJGZ UIF MFHBM FUIJDBM QSBDUJDBM BOE JEFPMPHJDBM DPODFSOT UP CF BEESFTTFE CZ UIF DPOTVMUBUJPO QSPDFTT $POTVMUBUJPO TUSBUFHZ JT FYQMPSFE TUFQ CZ TUFQ BOE TPDJBM NFEJB BOE POMJOF DPOTVMUBUJPO JT FYQMPSFE JO EFUBJM 5IJT JT UIF GJSTU DPNQSFIFOTJWF HVJEF UP NPEFSO QVCMJD DPOTVMUBUJPO XJUIJO UIF 6, EFWFMPQNFOU TFDUPS BOE XJMM CF FTTFOUJBM SFBEJOH GPS EFWFMPQFST TUVEFOUT BOE QMBOOFST

20% Discount Available - enter the code FLR40 at checkout*

Hb: 978-1-138-68014-2 | £76.00 Pb: 978-1-138-68015-9 | £27.99 * Offer cannot be used in conjunction with any other offer or discount and only applies to books purchased directly via our website.

For more information visit: www.routledge.com/9781138680159

CLIPBOARD

Output up Construction output has risen to a 17-month high according to the latest figures from Markit/CIPS Construction PMI as cost inflation dropped off. See cahrt, RIGHT

New housing and planning minister Reading West MP Alok Sharma has been appointed as new housing and planning minister.

His appointment by Theresa May comes after previous post holder Gavin Barwell lost his Croydon Central constituency seat in last week’s general election. Barwell is now working at Number 10 as the prime minister’s chief of staff.

Communities and local government secretary Sajid Javid used Twitter to congratulate Sharma, who he said was a friend, saying it was ‘great to have him on board’.

Sharma is not known to have any background in housing. He is a qualified chartered accountant and was vice chairman of the Conservative party before becoming parliamentary under secretary at the Foreign Office last July.

He was first elected to Reading West in 2010, and has served on the Commons treasury and science and technology select committees and as parliamentary private secretary at the Treasury. Last year, he became the prime minister’s infrastructure envoy to India.

He has also served as parliamentary private secretary to the former chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Oliver Letwin, who had overall responsibility for the Cabinet Office.

Before entering parliament, Sharma qualified as a chartered accountant with Coopers & Lybrand Deloitte and then worked in banking for 16 years, first with the Japanese firm Nikko Securities and then Enskilda Securities, the investment banking arm of SE Banken. There he held senior roles based out of London, Stockholm and Frankfurt, including serving as a member of the bank’s Corporate Finance Global Management Committee.

Sharma, 49, is married and lives in Reading with his wife, two daughters and his dog Olly.

Delivering a strong, inclusive future The Planning Convention 2017: ran under this banner last month. As in previous years, the smart high-tech 4-screen presentation hall and delegate space at SOM’s 155 Bishopsgate looked impressive, but the start was not encouraging.

Planning Minister Gavin Barwell MP, the convention’s promised keynote speaker, had lost his seat and the government’s Chief Planner, Steve Quartermain - always good value at these events - was busy elsewhere briefing the new Planning Minister.

But the keynote address, given by substitute Lord Taylor of Gross Moor, was a brilliant and stimulating - if slightly off the wall - alternative. In a highly erudite charge through the politics of planning and the latest election, the (in)competence of the new government, via a declaration that “green Belts were never intended to be large swathes of land where you can’t build but where we need homes … we have completely lost the plot on green belts”, Matthew Taylor set us off thinking about the “strong, inclusive future” by stating that it’s now certain that nothing is certain.

The main programme continued this theme with Dr Mary Keeling (Program Director, Economic Analysis Strategy and Market Development, IBM Global Government Industry) telling us that “key requirements for new developments will be things

you can’t see”, and suggesting that human and ecological well-being must be coordinated/integrated by technology and game-playing - the young should embrace this as an alternative to Minecraft.

And this was followed by Professor Peter Head (Founder and Chief Executive Officer of the Ecological Sequestration Trust) demanding that planners enable fully sustainable cities, adding “Smart and sustainable is about public, private, academia, everyone, working together”. The website resilience.io aims for transformational change using a global network of integrated tools and collaboration for financing and decision making for resilience.* Professor Barbara Norman (Foundation Chair of Urban and Regional Planning and Director of Canberra Urban and Regional Futures at the University of Canberra) called for “climate-ready cities” that can accommodate growth. She suggested that we must see and copy what others are doing well - you don’t have to be first… Australia is already well on target for 100% renewable energy supply by 2020: “Really good planning connects the dots. We need to restore big-picture planning”.

The conclusion of this debate - labelled Smart vs sustainable - is it a choice? - was that no, it must be both.

Jules Pipe, GLA Deputy Mayor for Planning, Regeneration and Skills, kicked off the Setting cities free to plan section by pointing out that London - >>> unlike most others - is a global city; adding some-

Issue 102 July-September 2017

39

CLIPBOARD

what presciently “Without good design we could be building the disasters of the future”.

Marvin Rees, Mayor of Bristol, continued with an account of how he took over a chaos of leadership and is aiming to have a population that’s cheaper to run by emphasising shared power and responsibility through humility and coordination of all the sectors involved in city governance.

Robin Hambleton, Professor of City Leadership at UWE, also called for facilitative leadership of the inclusive city. “Leadership should be about listening and fusing [local] voices together”. He suggested that no other country in the world (except for North Korea) has so much centralisation: and the super-centralised state we now have - with a planning system “designed in Ambridge” inevitably weakens local government. New, effectively nominal, city mayors have no real power.

This was backed up by an insightful presentation from Christer Larsson, Planning Director for the City of Malmo. There, a massive loss of industry forced new directions in sustainability and infrastructure for the addition of long-term value to the city. And 70% of the population’s taxes go directly to local and city governments.

In the afternoon I joined the Planning after dark break-out session. This included presentations that emphasised the need for mixed uses in town centres to encourage tourism and variety, with a requirement to think outside the box. It’s clear that zoning of uses is well and truly dead, and the alleged conflict between residents and a lively night-time economy has been greatly exaggerated. Evidence that older people, who often desire easy access to town-centre facilities, can live happily together with students and late-night entertainment venues abounds.

The Ask the Chief Planners section was notable for the absence of Steve Quartermain (or a deputy), and I personally found the future of planning in Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland strangely divorced from reality.

Finally, five young planners each gave a “speed view of the future” with the remit to concentrate on Tackling climate change, with varying but always lively presentations.

Last year my colleague, Drummond Robson, summed up the 2016 Convention by concluding that “We have at least two years or more of economic turbulence. Political and even social atti-

40

Planning in London

West End trials fresh air and ethical shops using pavement technology and popup shops: New West End Company

tudes are totally confused. Age, educational attainment and national identity all strongly influenced referendum [and now general election] voting.” Things are even more uncertain today.

Who will be running the country or what opposition is likely? Missing from the debates were the big questions surrounding migrants, population, employment and the changes we can expect from whoever does take over the country’s regulatory regime now we are outside Europe. And, as Drummond finally asked, “how can planning be genuinely productive? – not the regulators and those, less noisy, who tell us how to do it but those who actually do shape places”. Only time will tell - but by next year’s Convention we may all, of necessity, have become even more resilient.

– Andrew Rogers ____________________________________________ * Resilience - one of this year’s Convention buzzwords. Others were Place, Inclusivity, and Silo (meaning a self-enclosed group of like-minded individuals - see Wiktionary: “Our networking is organised in silos, and employees lose time manually transferring data”).

Ethical, clean shopping The New West End Company, which represents thousands of businesses, and

Transport for London (TfL) have joined a group of technology companies to create what they claim is the world’s first “smart street” on Bird Street, near Selfridges which will be transformed into a traffic-free zone where shoppers can try out a host of emerging retail technology trends from Thursday.

These include pavements that generate electricity and gather data. They also emit bird sounds and lights to create ambience as well as providing information on numbers of visitors.

Clean-air benches pump out filtered clean air and display details of air quality.

The street will also feature pop-up stalls covered with Airlite paint that claims to disinfect and sterilise the space around it, creating powerful protection against harmful bacteria and everyday infections.

Jace Tyrrell, chief executive of the New West End Company, said Bird Street would be transformed into a “blueprint for retail destinations of the future” at a time when high streets were struggling to survive.

A combination of changing shopping habits, the growth of internet retailing, rising business rates and other pressures has resulted in many high streets in the UK struggling to attract retailers and shoppers. n

14 September 2017 8am - 6.30p QEII Cent Westminster London SW1P

London’s infrastructure priorities under the new government

brought to you by

headline partner

DELEGATE TICKETS FROM £250 + VAT visit www.londoninfrastructuresummit.com LAST 100 PLACES REMAINING LONDON FIRST is pleased to present our 4th London Infrastructure Summit, taking place on Thursday 14 September 2017 at the QEII Centre, Westminster, London.

As the dust settles from the recent general election, the implications of the new government for London’s infrastructure are gradually becoming clearer. The London Infrastructure Summit builds on the success of previous years and brings together over 500 delegates.

Speakers include:

Jules Pipe CBE Deputy Mayor, Planning, Regeneration and Skills, GLA

dinner partner

Michèle Dix CBE Managing Director, Crossrail 2

Mike Brown MVO Commisioner, Transport for London

Professor Tony Travers Chair, London Finance Commission

Gavin Barwell MP, Minister of State for Housing and Valerie Mark Carne Planning Shawcross CBE Chief Executive, Deputy Mayor Network Rail for Transport GLA

conference partners

conference associates

network zone partner

H[KLELWRU EULH¿QJ VHVVLRQV

supporting partners

For all sponsorship, exhibitor or delegate queries, please contact: bchester@londonfirst.co.uk

www.londoninfrastructuresummit.com

BRIEFING | LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM

Housing provision and policy implications for a new government Minutes of the meeting on 5th June at the offices of GORDON DADDS, solicitors, 6 Agar Street London WC2N 4HN between 2.30 and 5.30 pm. Our host was Adrian Bingham, Partner at GORDON DADDS, supported by Amy Hutchins and head of marketing, Mariann Fairley. Full minute at planninginlondon.com - LP&DF. The Chairman thanked Gordon Dadds for hosting the event in such excellent central London surroundings and for providing a diversity of refreshment. Adrian Bingham welcomed the group on the Company’s behalf. He alluded to the current troubled and confusing times and explained that a key trouble of the Practice’s lives (and perhaps those of the present group) is planning. He explained that the legal practice has its focus on Real Estate.

His partner Justin Neal said that the practice was united by the two ends of the M4 corridor – one in London close to the Strand and one in Cardiff which make for an interesting perspective across England and Wales.

Discussion Topics: 1. The role of the state in housing provision and its effect on the housing market.

Susan Emmett from Policy Exchange (and formerly Savills Research) introduced the topic.

She started by suggesting that housing would be large on the list of priorities, and gave the

emphasis of her thoughts to the likelihood of Conservative policies for post 8th June, with whatever majority. The aspiration is 1 million more new homes between 2015 and end of 2020, or 200K/ year. . The ambition has been an increased to 500,000 new homes between 2020 and 2022 which is the equivalent of 250,000 a year Other aspirations have been more ambitious at 300K, higher than any government has been calling for. Net additional housing numbers from the DCLG figures shows we delivered 189,650 extra homes in 2015/16 which is a 52 per cent increase on the numbers delivered in 2010/12-. These net additional housing figures are more reliable than data for starts or completions. They include PD rights numbers, . Energy performance certificates are an alternative measure and show that we are already hitting 200,000.

Different approaches are being considered to increase house building rates. We are moving away from the previous administration’s focus on large volume housebuilders towards an approach that

Minutes of the meeting on 5th June at the offices of GORDON DADDS where our host was Adrian Bingham ATTENDANCE: Brian Waters (Chairman) Adrian Bingham: Partner Gordon Dadds Justin Neal: Partner, Head of Real Estate Gordon Dadds Dom Barton: Metropolitan Infrastructure Duncan Bowie: University of Westminster Dan Lewis: CE Future Energy Strategies Michael Edwards: UCL Peter Eversden: London Forum Riëtte Oosthuizen: HTA Design Susan Emmett: Policy Exchange Drummond Robson: Honorary Secretary and Robson Planning Apologies were received from Andy Rogers, Brian Whiteley, Colm Lacey, David Bradley, Jessica Ferm, Peter Murray and Tom Ball. Much of the low turnout may be related to the forthcoming National Election on 8th June.

42

Planning in London

provides support for a wider range of developer delivering homes for a wider range of tenure. This includes support for housing associations and local authorities. The Conservative manifesto mentions a “new generation of fixed- term council housing with the Righ to Buy. , The (Sir Michael) Lyons Housing Review of 2014 (updated in 2016) and now in the Conservative and Labour Manifestos provides many of the proposed solutions. Its summary is below: The Conservative Manifesto repeated the intention to deliver 160K homes on public land, more power and responsibility to Councils to intervene where developers do not act. The Housing White Paper proposes a “housing delivery test” to hold local authorities to account with consequences for failing to act. For example, from November 2018 the presumption in favour of sustainable development in the NPPF would apply if delivery of housing falls below 25% of the housing requirement which effectively brings control back to the centre.

Gavin Barwell is encouraging Homes for affordable rent (80 per cent of market rent) for a fixed term.

This said there is little more on offer as regards funding in the Conservative manifesto. Low cost capital funding and borrowing have been suggested. Further reforms to increase the scope of CPO powers is also advocated presumably to facilitate land value capture The new Neighbourhood Planning Act passed in April has already brought some reform CPO powers and this would be further. It looks the model relies on capturing land value in increase as well as a degree of house price appreciation but it is not quite clear to me how it would work in practice and how the sums stack up.

The latest statistics for house building starts show that At present 84 per cent of new housing is being built by the private sector, 14 per cent housing association and 1 per cent local authority. At present the property market is slowing.

Brian Waters, thanking Susan Emmett for her stimulating talk, asked why it is that the stimula- >>>

Lyons Housing Review of 2014 (updated in 2016)

provide a return for investment; and highlight priorities for future investment when this becomes possible.

Public expenditure is a matter for the next government but housing must be a key priority for capital expenditure in the next Parliament.

We need to build more homes We face the biggest housing crisis in a generation.

The type of homes and the action needed to get them built will be different in different areas of the country. The pressure for new homes is particularly acute in London and the South

For decades we have failed to build enough homes to meet demand. We need to build at

East, but there is no community in the country that does not face the challenge of providing

least 243,000 homes a year to keep up with the number of new households being formed, but

homes for its children. Every one of these communities must accept this challenge, but they

last year we only built 109,000 homes. Indeed, we have only managed an average of 137,000

must also have a stronger say locally so they can make sure the new homes really do meet the

homes a year over the last ten years. Without a change of course, it is predicted that the coun-

needs of local people, are in the places they want to see them built, and deliver benefits to the

try will be short of up to two million homes by 2020.

wider community.

The consequences of this are widely felt. House prices and rents are going up faster than earnings because demand massively outstrips supply. The average home now costs 8 times the

National leadership and a focus on delivery

average wage. The 2011 Census shows that there were one million more children living in the

The Government must provide long term political leadership by making housing a national pri-

private rented sector than ten years previously. Millions of working people are unable to afford

ority. Decisions about how and where new homes should be built should be taken locally by

the homes they want, and their children and grandchildren face the fear of never being able to

local authorities and their communities with the tools, flexibilities and devolution of funding

afford the homes they need.

needed, but on the basis of clear commitments that housing need will be met.

Our failure to build enough homes also causes volatility in the national economy and

We propose a new cross government task force to support Ministers; with an independent

damages the prospects for growth by reducing labour mobility and undermining the ability of

commission to provide independent scrutiny and evaluation of progress; and stronger objec-

our towns and cities to attract new businesses.

tive information on trends in housing supply through the creation of a housing observatory.

The Homes and Communities Agency should become the Government’s development agency

Why we don’t build enough homes

with sharper focus on delivery and a new role in attracting private investment. Current funding

There are two major causes of this crisis.

programmes for housing should be consolidated and devolved to local authorities in city and

First, there is not enough land being brought forward for new homes. This artificial scarcity of

county regions.

land for housing has created distortion in the land market, limiting the rate at which new homes are built and incentivising the acquisition and trading of land. This is compounded by

Making more land available for housing in the right places and ensuring that itis developed

the fact that communities do not have all the powers they need to ensure that homes are

Constraints on the supply of land do more than limit the number of building plots available;

built in the places they want, and some are not taking responsibility for meeting local housing

they also encourage a business model for developers that limits the rate at which those plots

need. There are limits on the scope for local authorities to play an active “place-shaping” role

are then built out.

and to actively promote the creation of new homes. Whilst some authorities have sought to

The responsibility of councils to identify sufficient land for new homes in local plans

overcome these constraints others have not, relying instead largely on the reactive use of their

should be strengthened, as should their ability to deliver these plans. Where there is a failure

planning powers.

Secondly, the nation’s capacity to build homes has shrunk drastically. Fifty years ago, the

to cooperate across boundaries to meet needs in a housing market area, councils will be required to produce a joint strategic plan, with the Secretary of State having the ability to

public and private sectors between them built over three hundred thousand homes a year.

intervene and instruct the Planning Inspectorate to ensure that it happens. This will address

Now, we rely on just a small number of volume house builders and as a result we build far

the weaknesses in the current Duty to Cooperate and ensure that places that need it can exer-

fewer homes. There has also been a change in the shape of the house building industry itself.

cise a “Right to Grow”. We also advocate stronger partnership working through the planning

During the 1980s there were on average 10,000 active SME builders (those building 500 units

system, timely response to planning conditions and full cost recovery to ensure planning is

or less) delivering around 57 per cent of all output; last year there were only around 2,800

properly funded.

active small builders producing 27 per cent of all new homes.

Meanwhile the public sector’s contribution has declined significantly despite Housing

Councils should also have “use it or lose it” powers to incentivise faster development, giving them the ability to levy council tax on plots allocated for housing in plans where homes

Associations’ great efforts to fill the gap left by councils’ retreat. For much of the period

are not built within reasonable timescales – as if the houses had been built, and to compulsori-

between 1948 and 1978, local authorities were responsible for building more than 90,000

ly purchase such land where necessary. We also recommend shortening the life of planning

homes a year. Last year it was just 1,000 homes. Housing Associations have played a crucial

permissions and creating greater transparency in the land market to make it clear not only

role, building on average 18,800 new homes per year between 1978 and 2013, but this is only

who owns what land, but also to make public which developers have taken out options on

a fraction of what the public sector built in the post war era.

land with the potential for new homes. This openness will help communities to ensure that where they have made land available for the homes they need, these homes get built.

A roadmap to tackle the housing crisis This report sets out a roadmap to tackle these underlying issues and increase house building

Giving communities the power they need to shape the places in which they live and deliver

to at least 200,000 homes a year by 2020. To solve our housing crisis, we must of course go

the homes they need

beyond this figure over time and ensure that both the public and private sectors develop the

The public is frequently concerned that houses are often built in the wrong place, for the

capacity they need. We must also change minds and build public support for housing. This

wrong people and without adequate attention to the pressures created for existing infrastruc-

means building high quality homes that people want to live in, in places that will thrive, where

ture. As new housing changes and shapes the places in which people live, communities should

communities can prosper and where the environment is protected for future generations. And

make the decisions about how they grow. It is the job of elected local authorities to do this

we must provide more choice and affordability too. With private rental market affordability

with their communities and to ensure the homes they need are provided. We therefore recom-

stretched, a shortage of homes for affordable and social rent and an ageing population, we will

mend that local authorities play a much more

need to build more of all tenures.

Our approach seeks to refocus public and private investment for the longer term, making better use of land and assets and encouraging a longer term equity stake in development to

energetic role in leading housing development for their communities. They should be provided with greater powers to bring forward developments working with partners, through

>>>

Housing Growth Areas.

Issue 102 July-September 2017

43

BRIEFING | LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM

This will give councils the ability to act as lead developers on behalf of their communi-

>>> ties, with greater control over: where the homes should go; the speed of development; the design and quality of schemes;

dence and certainty to deliver more homes.

Councils can and should return to a significant role in commissioning and building social housing. They will do this partly through New Homes Corporations; by sharing risks in part-

and the specification of a greater mix of tenures so that they can attract a wider range of

nerships with developers; and also through active asset management and new models like

house builders into the market. This is not intended to displace existing development activity

local housing companies. It will also be necessary to look at better use of the Housing

where it is working well but to bring forward additional homes and to accelerate delivery

Revenue Account for councils, where they can demonstrate a clear investment plan, with

where there are problems in bringing schemes forward.

active management of the overall borrowing headroom by the Treasury.

We also propose the creation of a generation of New Homes Corporations to act as delivery agencies working across housing market areas with a particular focus on development in

Garden Cities and Garden Suburbs

Housing Growth Areas. Led by local authorities, they will bring together private developers,

It clearly makes sense to build on brownfield land where we can and the brownfield first poli-

Housing Associations, and investment partners to use powers and funding to deliver the new

cy should be strengthened, but building Garden Cities, Garden Suburbs and reshaping and

homes, with clear and accountable outcomes to local communities.

Housing Growth Areas and New Homes Corporations should be supported by a range of

expanding existing towns will be essential to meeting housing need over the medium to longterm. The next government should immediately initiate such a programme, to be delivered by

powers including a stronger role in land assembly and the ability to ensure that infrastructure

new Garden City Development Corporations and New Homes Corporations based on

can be provided upfront. This will need reforms to powers to purchase land, designed to

reformed New Towns Legislation.

encourage landowners, both public and private to invest their land and ensure that the costs

Government should set out criteria that Garden Cities would be expected to meet so that

of infrastructure are funded from the value created by the development they support.

local authorities can come forward with proposals to be developed in partnership. Proposals

Revolving Infrastructure Funds will pool central and local funds, and will be able to attract pri-

from private promoters will be accepted, but only where they can demonstrate local support.

vate investment in infrastructure to support new development.

Incentives should include the ability for new Garden Cities to retain 100 per cent of business rates for 30 years to invest over the longer-term, as well as providing financial guarantees to

A bigger and more diverse house building industry

support up-front delivery.

The private house building industry will be vital in providing new homes, and it accounts for

This locally-led development model would be able to play a central role in building a new

79 per cent of all homes built. It has, however, reduced in size and output over the last genera-

generation of Garden Cities. This should be combined with a rolling programme of Garden

tion. Each successive economic downturn has seen a wave of contraction that has reduced

Suburbs. The aim should be for local leadership to promote and enable many more new set-

capacity. Action is needed on three fronts. To encourage the volume house builders, we need

tlements though a mix of freestanding new Garden Cities, new Garden Suburbs, and remod-

policy stability and a supply of land supported by the planning reforms we have recommend-

elled towns, in a range of places across the country.

ed, and more risk sharing and working with the public sector. To revive the SME sector, we propose a package of support, in particular reducing the cost and risk of making an application on

Together our recommendations could help accelerate the delivery of up to 500,000 homes.

a small site and providing access to government guarantees for bank finance. And we need a wide range of organisations commissioning housing – from social landlords to regeneration agents – to make the most of the potential role of the construction sector as contractors.

Funding infrastructure New homes and the people who will live in them need infrastructure, from water and utilities

We should also encourage unconventional developers, from supermarket chains to the

to transport, schools and hospitals. However, the current system doesn’t produce enough

churches, to enter into the house building market in their own right. There are also opportuni-

funding to provide this infrastructure and this then leads to conflict between councils and

ties to support self and custom build and community led housing initiatives. Our proposals for

developers which holds up both planning decisions and building where permission to develop

Housing Growth Areas and New Homes Corporations will also increase competition, and sup-

has already been given. A fundamental problem is a failure to effectively capture the increase

port additional homes through the growth of SME builders and encouraging new entrants.

in the value of land which is created by the community’s decision to release it for building.

External capacity constraints must also be addressed, especially in the supply chain for skilled labour, and opportunities for greater use of off-site build technologies should be taken.

We therefore propose separate negotiation of development gain on large sites and greater use of contracts to assist land assembly and development partnerships. There must also be a clear method for assessing viability and a new arbitration service for negotiations

Housing for all

between councils and developers.

Building more homes is not just about home ownership. We need a choice of homes to reflect

Reformed compulsory purchase order powers will incentivise landowners to invest in land

people’s ability to pay and the different stages in their lives. We need to help people secure

partnerships, and allow for a greater share of the increased value created by development to

their own home through much more attractive shared ownership schemes, as well as more

be used to fund the infrastructure in Housing Growth Areas, Garden Cities and Garden

quality homes to rent. Housing for an ageing population must also be a priority, with more

Suburbs.

market choice for those wishing to downsize so as to free up larger family homes. We also

We also need to target public investment more effectively and attract greater private sec-

need to do more to provide homes for social and affordable rent to ensure that those on the

tor investment in homes and infrastructure. Revolving Infrastructure Funds and opportunities

lowest incomes and the most vulnerable have a secure and decent home.

for Tax Increment Financing should form part of the tools available to local authorities and their New Homes Corporations.

While recognising the precarious position of the Exchequer, affordable housing must be a priority for taxpayer funding as the fiscal position improves over time.

Housing Associations have demonstrated an impressive commitment to social house

Design and the environment New housing requires public support and it should, of course, improve the quality of people’s

building and have shown real ambition in meeting need. In a changing fiscal environment,

lives. Good design, informed by an understanding of what makes homes environmentally sus-

they will need to adapt to a tougher climate for public subsidy and find alternative means of

tainable, is therefore indispensable. Terry Farrell’s recent review has made powerful recom-

unlocking investment capacity.

Government should work with Housing Associations to mobilise surpluses and headroom

mendations for entrenching better design through better planning and we encourage greater focus on the quality of place. We believe that a commitment to good design would be rein-

to unlock further investment, increase flexibilities for those who have the ambition and

forced by adopting the zero-carbon standard, setting minimum space standards for new build,

capacity and encourage others to develop the skills and capacity to play a bigger role.

and streamlining housing standards.

Government should also extend guarantees to Housing Associations to provide the confi-

44

Planning in London

>>> tion to set up subsidiary companies set up by the 2011 Act is not yet stimulating sufficient results.

He cited “Brick by Brick” – a new house building company owned by Croydon Borough building (see PiL101, article by MD Colm Lacey).

Riëtte Oosthuizen: HTA Design spoke of current work where a new obstacle to realising schemes is that the scheme should be “suitable to the local urban character”. This highly subjective aspiration provides endless scope for undiscerning and inexperienced Council officers to reject anything they do not like. Determining these schemes and the “culture of an area” enables widespread resistance by objectors too – now further empowered by social media to collaborate unaccountably – to object to almost any scheme.

DR added that this is worsened when, as now, all too often the case officer lacks the training to apply even simple long established limitations such as privacy distance between buildings. 20 metres becomes 50 with no justification or rationale other than it is not popular. Riëtte added that it even depends on who is commenting now that knocking on doors is unlikely to gauge a genuine response.

Peter Eversden was critical of the Heygate Estate renewal which took ages and suggested that the viability of schemes that communities can now insist that the calculations of schemes should be “properly assessed”. DR asked what this means

in practice given that there is no incentive then to reach agreement on what is a legitimate assessment of the value of a scheme and officers with no need to resolve this question can delay schemes for years, with no resolution other than accepting at least a year’s delay or more and the extra expense of going to appeal.

Michael Edwards concurred with reducing

unfettered discretion and said that much of the planning policy in this country is so widely discretionary requiring a growing list of matters of judgement and that much of this could be simplified – for example by the fixing by GLA of simple standards to cut down on the protracted debates over schemes (in contrast to Building Control which is regulatory). This would avoid for example >>>

Issue 102 July-September 2017

45

BRIEFING | LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM

endless design negotiation over how many storeys a building should have (sometimes irrespective of the cumulative impacts on an area). ME also drew attention (endorsed by Susan Emmett) to a recent chart from Savills Research which illustrates clearly one of the growing divergences of London’s supply from demand by numbers and value.

There was diverse speculation on the reasons for and inferences from these figures. Perhaps they are explained by policy rigidities, the unrealistically long lead times now required from preparing scheme proposals, justifying them through the planning policy processes followed by the planning application processes – often divergent from forecasting – the implications of migration, ability by foreign investors to distort the market, and flexibility in adapting to market demand and finance in a low interest rate economy. The Lyons report clearly offers many of the remedy sources which are needed post-election.

It was added that zoning principles have given way to applying PTAL’s to express acceptable densities.

BW said that build to rent offers volume housebuilders significant benefits since they can sell 50 per cent off plan and build them. Susan Emmett said this was particularly relevant for the second

46

Planning in London

half of the market cycle, which we are now in.

Peter Eversden was concerned about delays in the Old Oak/Park Royal plan which means that individual applications have no framework to work to. Susan Emmett was also concerned at the tendency to bid up housing numbers to unrealistic heights (figures have increased from 32,000 to 42,000 and now 49,000, which are simply unrealistic to achieve within London however much politicians may want them. It was more practical to seek hubs for corporate businesses outside London with more diverse mixes of uses and social groups, reducing the need to travel and diversifying dormitory towns. PE considered that Outer London development centres and clustering had not been picked up on as advocated by The Outer London Commission.

Duncan Bowie apologised for not joining the meeting earlier. He said that the GLA Strategic Housing Market Assessment is likely in the Autumn to be demonstrating a need for at least 65,000 new homes p.a. He noted that the 2014 study had 2 figures for annual housing need – one of 49,000 (assuming 20years to meet backlog) and 62,000 ( assuming 10 year to meet backlog). The GLA was therefore reviewing its density policies and seeking to increase development densities The GLA SHLAA

to be published at the same time would therefore seek to significantly increase annual capacity from the 2014 figure of 42,000 a year. PTALs were only one factor in the density matrix. The policy also took into account location of town centres and district centres and the existing built form within an area. PTAL relate to transport access and did not deal either with congestion or the connectivity of specific transport hubs. The masin issue was that the majority of schemes consented breached the density policy Rather than abandoning the density policy, the Mayor should be revised in association with design guidance, but the principle of Sustainable Residential Quality should not be abandoned. He also lamented the absence of strategic planning at a city region level Development beyond London is of increasing importance and a key challenge for London and the south east. A serious debate to be had is on housing and transport costs of travel to work.

PE wondered why the Design Commission had gone so quiet on access to infrastructure. He also thought that using as the crow flies distances were unrealistic for practical travel.

Discussion Topic 2.

Dan Lewis introduced the second item to consider “The implications for planning and development policy for the new government”.

He chose to focus on the Conservative manifesto with reference too to the Labour one, while using the others for their ideas.

He considered there were 3 very important questions of which the first is economic growth.

Now running at around 2.6 per cent it is about 1 per cent less than it has been. Spending growth is currently greater than income growth. This is having the effect of depressing London house prices.

In spite of forecasts it is unlikely there will be no recession between now and 2022. Estimates also suggest that the deficit will not be tackled by then but continue to 2025. In spite of this there appears to have been sustained jobs growth. The present 4.7 per cent figure is very encouraging, although there is a trade off in lower wages. In the Eurozone there are wide variations in growth rates.

Though Brexit is an emotional subject it needs to be remembered that 92 per cent of GDP is not trading with Europe at all. Recently the head of MACE asked where is the workforce in Central London to build the sought after housing growth?

Immigration statistics are clearly very uncertain and divergent from political aspirations. London’s has been growing since 1997.

Assessing the value of Sterling DL queried that while Britain was world leader in architects and planners we build poor quality houses, much of it is directed towards private ownership. Crossrail 2 is

not mentioned. New towns are not mentioned and the new Heathrow runway is now suddenly to be on stilts while Gatwick remains waiting in the wings. [It is precluded from expanding before 2019 but not after that.] Applications for Shale gas are not being seen as an opportunity by local Councils, nor as offering scope for job creation. Labour Councils want to ban fracking. Conservatives want to see it underground.

Land Value Taxation is being considered to offer more security than Council tax.

Ideas from other parties include from Liberal Democrats 10 new garden cities, lifting borrowing restrictions, no Heathrow, in favour of Crossrail 2 and Land Value Tax. From UKIP developing brownfield sites, opposing housing associations, seaside (migrant free?) development zones, (each with a Turner Gallery?). Social housing is seen as an historic mistake providing poor quality housing. Frank Lloyd Wright’s Broadacre City is seen to be less environmentally detrimental.

In response to a comment from Peter Eversden about Tower blocks and land assembly, the Chairman said that form is the variable and that with courtyards and Mansion blocks the densities achievable can be huge without the need for Towers. Leslie Martin demonstrated that it was unnecessary to build more than 8 storeys to achieve the density of Manhattan.

Dan Lewis said that the Conservative manifesto was more detailed than Labour’s (although Labour added a new housing element to their manifesto which pledges 100,000 council and housing associ-

ation homes every year by the end of the next Parliament for “genuinely affordable” rent and sale.

Homes will be delivered through the establishment of a new Department for Housing).

The Conservatives suggest a post-CIL review will introduce land value capture. The right to buy legislation the Conservatives are now stuck with.

Labour’s approach “wobbles” between different tenure types. On private renting Conservatives propose three year default tenures and secure tenancies. They also include a Green Belt review in their White Paper, unlike Labour. DL suggested looking at Lord Taylor’s report for Policy Exchange covering Garden villages.

Duncan Bowie recommended looking at the work done by Gavin Barwell who had been housing band planning minister until the election, in shifting the focus of the Government’s housing policy to include a recognition of the need for more rented housing as well as for home ownership. (Susan Emmett concurred and reinforced the work of the Labour Party’s Lyons Review on building capacity).

Local authorities appear desperate for cash with the result that their interest is more with the new homes bonus than housing, planning or changes in employment per se which is poorly understood.

Rate rises of 2-5 per cent fall very far short of meeting what is needed.

Southwark for example needs a 60 per cent increase to protect services. Council tax increases are however not possible given the current cap as well as not being politically acceptable. for wealth >>> taxes, taxes on land or revising /updating council

Issue 102 July-September 2017

47

BRIEFING | LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM

tax are also problematic.

BW wondered whether Land Value Tax would be a way of changing Council tax. The government is not going for a tax on land but on development gain. Ownership pf land and property are quite different. Stamp duty relates of course to property.

Michael Edwards spoke of the 5 year political cycle and reminded the group that there appeared to be cross party consensus on much of the housing programme. Land Value Tax seems common to all to bring house process down and the proportion of owner occupation is also going down.

Susan Emmett was more sceptical about Land Value Tax pointing out that now some 14 per cent work from home. The trend of moving workers into work places is countered by the growth of faster gigabit technology in which 30-40 per cent of people will have this technology in the next decade reducing travel demand. Travel using Uber for sharing cars will become more prevalent as insurance costs rise and more creative developments will evolve around stations.

Dom Barton, Business Development Director of Metropolitan was invited to speak of the Company’s core business in providing cable power notably to the private renting sector. He said that BT were still offering fibre technology to cabinets, which is very outdated. He referred to Google’s new plans for the Kings Cross Station site with fibre being delivered to end premises, enabling significant uplift in power to 1 gigabyte for streaming and a wider diversity of IT services.

BW queried why it was still necessary to dig trenches when wireless services [eg on trains] were available. Dom Barton responded by saying that this was his business [!] and that narrow trenching was increasingly competitive or using ducting associated with sewers.

The chairman thanked the speakers and the hosts for a fruitful Forum discussion.

In view of the national election results the minutes were reviewed by presenters before being issued..

Help Shape the Future of London ! !

If you want to help promote the debate on the capital’s future, join the London Society.

As a member you get priority booking and discounted rates for our walks, talks, debates and lectures. You will see inside important buildings (some not generally open to the public) on our tours. There will be opportunities to attend social events held in some of London’s most interesting locations.

And if you join now we'll send you a FREE copy of the London Society Journal (worth £7.50) and you can get a free ticket to hear Sir Terry Farrell give this year's Banister Fletcher lecture in November.

To join – and get your free Journal – visit

www.londonsociety.org.uk/join-here NEXT MEETING on 25TH SEPTEMBER at University College London Hosts: Michael Edwards & Jessica Fern Topics to include the Mayor’s Strategy and the emerging London Plan Forum meetings are open but please notify the Hon Secretary at robplan@btconnect.com

POSTSCRIPT The new housing and planning Minister to replace Gavin Barwell is Alok Sharma. n

48

Planning in London

Full agenda: please check planninginlondon.com - LP&DF

OFFSITE CONSTRUCTION | RORY BERGIN

Can offsite construction reduce the UK housing shortage?

Rory Bergin says offsite construction industry is in a sweet spot but will need support from all sectors of the industry to succeed.

Rory Bergin is partner, sustainable futures at HTA Design LLP

There has never been a better time to encourage and develop the offsite construction industry to deliver new homes. It is in a sweet spot where traditional construction is under tremendous pressure simultaneously from several directions: skills, immigration, time and cost. But this will need support from all sectors of the industry if it’s to succeed.

There are a number of offsite manufacturing methods available to the UK housing industry and many are already rising in popularity. Constructing homes from large format panels is increasingly popular, using systems such as Structural Insulated Panels (SiPs) manufactured by well-known names such as Kingspan. These can result in the construction of a weather-tight building within a week. Other systems using steel-framed panels or cross-laminated timber (CLT) are equally speedy and can be used for taller schemes. But the manufacturers who prefabricate full-sized 3-D rooms or ‘modules’ are the ones that appear to be leading the way in innovation.

At HTA we are working with a number of modular and offsite companies developing new housing projects, including prototypes for factory production, constructing buildings that are largely factory made, and designing new schemes for private rental that can be modularised or prefabricated. Within the space of five years offsite construction has gone from being an idea that we devoted a lot of time to promoting, to now being a substantial part of our workload. We have completed four major projects where pre-fabrication played a major role, including one of the largest zero-carbon schemes in the UK and including three buildings up to 19 stories high in London. All of these were completed either on-time with few defects, or up to a year earlier than comparable buildings of the same size. Two more projects are on site, including one which is already the tallest modular structure in Europe.

There are some areas of the industry where offsite construction makes a lot of sense. For a landlord who is building a rental building, being able to complete a year earlier has a major impact on the viability of the development which is why so many of our rental projects are either considering this approach seriously, or have already moved away from traditional construction methods. The major benefits to them, apart from the speed of delivery, is that the rooms come complete, with all the fixed elements installed. Depending on the agreement, manufacturers can install all fixed items in the rooms before delivery, including built-in furniture, light fittings and all finishes. The windows and doors are usually installed in the factory as the modules are sufficiently stiff to protect them during lifting.

In our experience it is possible to install ten or more modules per crane per day, which is the equivalent of four two bedroom

apartments. While the groundworks, cladding and roof elements are all substantial pieces of work and are rarely prefabricated, this speed makes a radical difference to the construction sequence. By prefabricating this much of the building we estimate that between 75 per cent and 80 per cent of the project value is manufactured offsite.

When you add to these considerations, the fact that the construction workforce in the UK is at or near to full capacity and that there is unlikely to be an influx of workers to fill low-skilled roles as has happened in the past, using factory production makes sense as a way of doing more with fewer people. A factory can offer a safe, dry environment, and workers can move from module to module to add materials, services or finishes without >>>

Issue 102 July-September 2017

49

OFFSITE CONSTRUCTION | RORY BERGIN

>>> intruding on the work of others. They can also become highly skilled because the work that they do is sufficiently repetitive without becoming mind-numbingly dull.

The costs of the prefabrication methods are also dropping as the factory businesses scale up. When a factory is running at full capacity it becomes a very efficient construction system, and the reason that many of them have failed in the UK in the past is that they have rarely had the opportunity to run at full capacity for any substantial period of time. The boom and bust cycle of construction has made it very difficult for those businesses to survive a sudden influx of work or a sudden cancellation of work. Factories are not as resilient as subcontracting businesses, but they are more efficient and in the long term they will be cheaper. Now that these factories are busy, their cost base is not changing as much as traditional construction and they can maintain prices for longer while the sub-contracting market struggles to meet the demand. This is making developers and contractors look again at prefabrication as their traditional supply chains reach capacity and their price rises.

The impact that this methodology has on the project is not confined to speeding up the construction sequence. The number of deliveries is reduced significantly, the pollution of the local area is reduced by the reduction in deliveries and the lack of heavy plant on site, and the congestion on the local roads is also reduced, although large loads such as these module deliveries can be disruptive if they are not well-organised. Our fastest project is going to be completed within a calendar year, at least a year quicker than a traditional contract.

Away from the construction site there are other benefits, the factory is staffed by people who are based there and who can set up a stable lifestyle instead of having to drive for hours every day to a building site. They have safer, calmer and healthier lives. They work in a dry and sheltered environment all day and are much more productive than their counterparts on traditional sites.

All of these benefits are available today, but there arenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t enough plants available to make a serious impact on the production levels of the UK housing industry. A good sized factory can produce 1-2000 units per year, which means that we would need fifty of them to make a serious impact on the UK housing shortage. In addition to the fifty factories we need 500 clients who agree that this is their preferred method of construction, and the factories would need a lot of senior staff who understand manufacturing processes and also understand the needs of the housing market. It is not as simple as taking a factory that produced bits of car, and turning it into one that produces

50

Planning in London

bits of house. While the production methodology may be similar, the product is very different. Housing always needs to be good quality housing. We have had a long and painful legacy of cheaply constructed prefabricated buildings from the post-war years and we must avoid repeating any of those mistakes. The product from the factory must be appropriate and of high quality, or else there is little point in constructing it.

When it comes to design and planning there is a role for the architect and for the planner. The architect needs to understand manufacturing and to listen to the voice of the manufacturer, there are limits to the size of elements that a manufacturer can make or move, there are limits on the size of loads that can be transported on our roads, and there are limits to the size of an object that a crane can move into position. In the same way that the industry has become very aware of health and safety over the last decade, we need to become aware of designing for manufacture and assembly (DfMA). This does not mean designing boxes and making everything look the same, much of what is done in factories is about making the internal arrangement standardised, but not the external appearance, and the manufacturers who are serious about engaging with the UK housing industry know that this is an important consideration.

All of this leads me to think that we have the opportunity to

create a new industrial sector in the UK, one that could rival the car industry. A solid and long term factory based housing production industry that generated stable outputs, of high quality and which could lever their supply chains to bring down the costs of production. It would take enormous amounts of traffic off our roads, put a lot of white van men and women into stable jobs, reduce the energy consumption of construction, cut down pollution and noise, and transform construction from an unattractive and old-fashioned industry into a modern concern that attracts the brightest and best.

Current factory production is a lot like site-based production but much better organised and safe. Future factory production could be highly automated, and use modern manufacturing to increase quality, lower costs and deliver greater customer choices through customisation, like almost every other industry on the planet. That is an exciting prospect for the future, but in order to get there we need some things to change now. We need clients to agree that this is the way to build things, we need insurers to support them, we need planners to welcome the approach, we need designers to take a lead in proposing these solutions and we need manufacturers to bring their expertise to bear on the problem, none of us can do it alone, we all need to contribute. n

Issue 102 July-September 2017

51

NXXX

Full p

52

Planning in London

NXXX

programme at: http://totallythames.org/whats-on

Issue 102 July-September 2017

53

TEMPORARY STRUCTURES | ROBERT ALVAREZ

Planning for something permanently temporary How could a temporary structure ever be described as sustainable? asks Robert Alvarez

Robert Alvarez is De Boer sales director – commercial

54

Planning in London

How could a temporary structure ever be described as sustainable? And how can a temporary structure provide a permanent, short-term solution to planning restrictions? Has Planning in London succumbed to the fake news phenomena sweeping the world? No, both these sentences are based on hard facts, and you can go and see the buildings yourselves in London for proof.

Temporary structures have surprisingly robust sustainability credentials, and can create a solution where planning restrictions would make a permanent building impossible.

Sustainable can be defined as an ‘avoidance of the depletion of natural resources in order to maintain an ecological balance.’ Whilst sustainable development is described as ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.’ (International Institute for Sustainable Development.)

A product’s carbon footprint or its sustainability credentials can be achieved by measuring every aspect of its creation – from the extraction of component materials, its manufacture, transportation, construction and application, and finally to its destruction and end of life use. By its very nature a temporary structure can be reused and repurposed time and again, the essence of a circular economy.

Building innovations for a closed loop economy Our temporary structures are made of materials that are used again and again, the core measure of sustainability, and when they do come to the end of their useful life, the materials used are recovered thus contributing to the closed loop economy.

For example, steel frames can be recycled and in fact, many frames will also contain a percentage of re-used material. Similarly, aluminium frames have an effective life of around 15 – 20 years before they cannot be safely used again, at which time they too will be recycled. Metal is a permanently available material unlike other resources such as plastic which is not infinitely recycled. Having said that we do use some petroleum-based materials such as PVC for our roof sails and wall coverings. Importantly, we use high quality PVC rather than a cheaper alternative as it has an effective lifespan of 20 – 25 years - far longer than many would expect for a ‘temporary’ solution.

Working with French specialists, the De Boer Research and Development team created the Acoustic Barrier Mat system which is entirely re-usable. These special wall insulation panels are a vast improvement on their contemporary alternatives, mainly foam, used for sound or heat insulation which often can only be used once. Plus, traditional insulation panels can often prevent other materials they come into contact with

from being recycled, due to contamination.

Our Acoustic Barrier Mat system has been key to enabling iconic London venues to be used more creatively and in an environmentally friendly way. The temporary structures used for the Game of Thrones Season Five Premiere allowed the

event organisers to utilise a small space in the moat of the Tower of London and the specialist acoustic panelling provided superior noise control and sound proofing. The Acoustic Barrier Mats have since been used at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, the Liverpool Festival of Business in 2016 and recently across the Kings Cross Theatre complex.

Leading the way in a circular construction industry Of course, you could say that the materials used in a permanent structure can be repurposed, eventually, although at present very little is. Schemes such as Loop Hub are aiming to create a reuse market in the construction industry which is a great step forward.

However, such schemes are reliant on architects and contractors entering accurate information about the building materials at the point of construction, and its likely demolition or refurbishment date, so that the quantity and quality of material available for later use can be known and accessed.

Success also requires an architect or planner to use the database in preference to purchasing virgin materials when constructing new buildings.

The benefit of a temporary structure from a sustainability point of view is that we have control and responsibility of every stage of the process, from planning, building to deconstruction and eventual recycling or repurposing of material. It is that endto-end responsibility which is key to achieving true sustainability.

Temporary structures played an important part in the London Olympics being credited as the most â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;sustainable Olympic games hosted in modern timesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. The Athletes Dining Hall was built using De Boerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Delta Vista structure which has since gone on to be used as a semi-permanent performing arts centre for Lytchett Minster School in Dorset. The embodied energy in the building has been used again and again. >>>

Issue 102 July-September 2017

55

TEMPORARY STRUCTURES | ROBERT ALVAREZ

Enablers for complex builds Often temporary structures are key to ‘meantime development’ projects, those which have short term purpose, but which add value to the local community – Brixton’s ice rink is a perfect example.

To mitigate complaints from the local community which were hampering a wider development project, a temporary ice rink was built in Brixton, while a permanent ice rink was built on the original site of Streatham rink. Once the project was complete, every aspect of the temporary structure was repurposed or used again, including the seating going to a local football stadium, and the structure itself becoming a storage recycling facility in Mitcham, Surrey. Many temporary structures originally used in London can now be found serving other purposes across the country.

Due to their flexibility, versatility and quick build times, temporary structures act as an enabler for the most complex builds. The theatre complex at King’s Cross is a brilliant example of this. The land next to King’s Cross train station is owned

by Google, but has remained vacant for the last two years before building work for the new permanent offices commenced. Meanwhile this prime location included a huge eight metre void serving no purpose at all other than acting as a giant soakaway.

De Boer helped to transform the site into a busy theatre complex, using a number of its iconic structure portfolio. The first pop-up theatre space on site was created for a production of E. Nesbitt’s Railway Children. Originally intended for just fifty performances, the temporary theatre space remained in place for more than two years.

Some aspects of the construction were the same as a permanent building. For example, every aspect of the site had to be calculated in advance such as rain flow from adjacent roofs to prepare adequate drainage and the axle weight of the train to build secure foundations.

The most recent development of the performance spaces for David Bowie’s Lazarus Musical and the Donmar Shakespeare Trilogy were completed in November 2016 and were only possible because a temporary structure could be built in the time frame allowed.

The installation, five different temporary structures in total, had to be completed in a window of twenty five days

56

Planning in London

from the first day on site to the opening night. The site could only be accessed through a pedestrianised walkway, King’s Boulevard. No vehicle movements were allowed during the day; construction vehicles could only arrive between the hours of 11 pm – 6 am and had to reach the site access point from the King’s Boulevard via a one-way traffic system.

Transportation is an important factor in carbon footprint or sustainability calculations. Our vehicles are all Euro 5 standard, which is also another element in the end-to-end responsibility aspect of a temporary structure. Having control of the transport and storage of materials allows for the highest degree of transparency, control and environmental best practice.

The King’s Cross Theatre complex has provided a new, uniquely accessible performing arts experience for thousands of people and it also won the ‘Building of Year’ at the theatre industry’s Stage Awards 2017. King’s Cross is one of the busiest stations in London and the theatre complex is right by the underground entrance, something that could never have been achieved with a permanent building on that site.

Temporary structures offer accessibility and flexibility, but the concept of a temporary solution is only acceptable to many clients because the life cycle of the structures and their entire construction process have impeccable environmental credentials. n

DISTRICT ENERGY | DOMINIC BARTON

District Energy – delivering low carbon and lower fuel bills District energy networks can help achieve low carbon by increasing efficiency and ultimately lowering the cost of energy explains Dominic Barton

How to achieve low carbon is preoccupying the thoughts of developers and house builders elsewhere in the UK but in London it is zero carbon that is front of mind. The London Plan and the GLA supplementary policy stipulate that from 2016 new houses must be zero carbon, with commercial buildings to follow in 2019 (at the earliest). Low carbon is an obligation which developers must meet and district energy networks can help achieve by increasing efficiency and ultimately lowering the cost of energy.

A hot topic for developers The UN Paris Climate Agreement, which committed governments to reducing carbon emissions to 80 per cent of 1990 levels by 2050 came into force in November 2016 (albeit with the notable exception of the USA). Since buildings account for 40 per cent of total energy consumption, the prime concern is to decarbonise heat because of the high levels of carbon associated with heating our buildings. Decentralised energy systems, serving high-density populated areas, are therefore seen as a key means of delivering the required low-carbon objective. Indeed, in March this year, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) argued that heat networks could serve at least 10 per cent of total heat demand in the UK by 2030, creating 81,000 jobs and attracting £22billion of private investment along the way. Across

the UK, this focus has led to changes in planning guidelines, building regulations and SAP. In London, the response has been unequivocal.

The London Plan’s section on Climate Change (Chapter 5) states that each major development must submit an energy assessment which demonstrates that climate-change mitigation measures are integral to the scheme’s design and evolution. In order to achieve the required ‘zero-carbon’ status the GLA building regulations further stipulate that the target for both domestic and commercial developments is for a 35 per cent carbon emission reduction beyond standard building regulations. The Mayor’s expectation is that localised decentralised systems will generate 25 per cent of the heat and power used in London by 2025. This ambition has led to the requirement that developers should prioritise connection to existing or planned district energy networks where feasible, and the boroughs have been tasked with identifying and establishing decentralised network opportunities. The Plan’s active encouragement for development to be Lean, Clean and Green and to adopt positive consideration of district energy schemes, for both housing and commercial development, has generated new levels of interest in this technology.

District energy networks are, however, tried and tested so local authorities and developers can be confident that the energy efficiencies that these networks promise can be delivered in >>>

Dominic Barton, Metropolitan Infrastructure Ltd

Issue 102 July-September 2017

57

DISTRICT ENERGY | DOMINIC BARTON

>>>

BELOW: Metropolitan operates a district energy network at the largest regeneration project in the UK at King’s Cross.

PREVIOUS PAGE: The Energy Centre at King's Cross BELOW: King's Cross under construction RIGHT: Combined Heat and Power (CHP) engine at King's Cross (painted pink in aid of Breast Cancer Research)

58

Planning in London

reality. Metropolitan, for example, designed, installed and now operates the district energy system at King’s Cross, one of the largest regeneration projects in the UK. Here, fuel bills for residents have been reduced by more than 5 per cent and companies such as Google, Louis Vuitton and the University of the Arts London have been attracted to the development. When complete, this new piece of London will consist of 2,000 homes, 50 new buildings, 20 new streets and 10 new parks and have 45,000 people living and working there. Already it is home to London’s greenest building, the new headquarters of Camden Council at Five Pancras Square. The council offices, leisure centre and library have been awarded an ‘Outstanding’ BREEAM sustainability rating. A further six buildings at King’s Cross have been awarded ‘Outstanding’ and ‘Excellent’ status, in part due to the integrated energy strategy that has been a key part of the master development plan.

Investment backed by Government funding Developers and housebuilders may have little choice but to consider incorporating district energy systems into their proposals, given the imperative of planning and building regulations, but such systems must make business sense too if they are to be a viable option. The additional availability of significant government funding will ensure major growth in this sector in the immediate future.

Loan funding is available through the Heat Networks Investment Project (HNIP). Public sector organisations in England and Wales have already benefited from the pilot stage of the HNIP with more than £24M of support for nine heat networks awarded in April 2017. Four of the successful bids were in London: Becontree, Barking and Dagenham; Church Street District Heating System, Westminster; Wood Street South,

Waltham Forest; and Somers Town, Camden which is the second phase of an existing network. The winning applications demonstrated well-defined business cases; a robust timetable for construction; and an awareness of the financial risks involved and plans to mitigate them.

Whilst the pilot was restricted to schemes with public sector involvement, the HNIP is about to enter its main funding phase with £300M available and consultations are currently taking place as to whether private-sector schemes could also benefit. Competition for funding is expected to be fierce. New applications and unsuccessful applications to be re-submitted will need the optimum combination of technical, legal and commercial expertise in preparing their bids to secure this valuable funding and to advance their projects beyond the feasibility study stage. Fortunately, such assistance, funded by both national government and the GLA, is readily available for London projects. In addition Metropolitan is uniquely placed to provide a comprehensive range of investment models to suit every scheme, timescale and budget.

Free advice and support In addition to the HNIP funding, the Heat Networks Delivery Unit (HNDU) was established by the Government in 2013 to provide consultative support to local authorities exploring heat network opportunities. Combining grant funding with a pool of commercial and technical specialists to offer advice through the process, the scheme aims to assist local authorities in the early development stages of projects - heat mapping, energy masterplanning, feasibility studies, detailed project development and early commercialisation. The free advice offered by the HNDU will guide applicants, enabling them to incorporate best practice into their applications, and more importantly into their energy networks. Currently in its seventh round of funding, the HNDU has already distributed over £14M in funding to local authorities in England and Wales including a large number of London boroughs.

Further valuable help is available for London projects, both public and private sector, through the GLA’s Decentralised Energy Enabling Project (DEEP). The £3.5M project, due to be operational from June, will offer technical, commercial, financial and legal support services through an OJEU framework to assist projects from early-stage heat mapping through to procurement and commercialisation. Whilst capital expenditure will not be funded, beneficiaries will be able to draw on the expertise of the DEEP consultants, have access to pre-approved suppliers and receive help to bring projects to a sufficiently mature state for procurement.

A robust business case and commercialisation are important factors that must be considered by all HNIP applicants (and indeed all district energy schemes). In order to attract

funding, projects must be planned to offer a realistic return on investment (ROI); revenue from supply needs to be balanced against the value of the network as an asset. There are a variety of investment models available, from fully constructed and financed options to the later ‘adoption’ of an existing network where the developer no longer wishes to be involved. The establishment of Energy Service Companies (ESCos) to own and operate district energy schemes is one option offered by Metropolitan and it was this model that Metropolitan adopted at King’s Cross.

Looking ahead – flexibility and future-proofing built-in In a high-density city like London, integrating new developments into the existing infrastructure is essential and heat networks have the flexibility to expand to incorporate older buildings where heating systems need replacement. In a similar way, there is no need for a full-capacity energy centre from day one.

The installation of the energy centre is scalable, and designed to grow and evolve as the development expands.

Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plant engines driven by natural gas are commonly used to produce the energy in district energy networks. This is because they run at 80 per cent efficiency compared to the 50 per cent efficiency rating achieved by gas power stations. In the future, however, the energy source for these networks can be changed as alternative lower carbon sources become available. For example, Metropolitan is now considering the next phase of the King’s Cross development to deliver carbon savings with hydrogen fuel-cell technology. Other sources being explored include utilising the waste heat from the London Underground system and using heat pumps to draw upon the heat in rivers, canals or sewers.

The case for developers in London to embrace this technolo-

gy now is clear. District energy is exciting a lot of interest as a means of delivering zero carbon. It is a proven solution that continues to evolve and will be achieving energy efficiencies long into the future as is shown by Metropolitan’s own experience at King’s Cross. n REFERENCES: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/heat-networks-delivery-support https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fi le/607269/HNDU_-_Rounds_17_successful_Local_Authorities_7_April_2017.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fi le/581431/R7_HNDU_overview__1_.pdf https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/current-london-plan/london-plan-chapter-five-londons-response https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/environment/energy/energy-supply https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/planning-applications-anddecisions/pre-planning-application-meeting-service-0

Issue 102 July-September 2017

59

FINANCING AND DELIVERING LARGE SCALE COMMUNITIES | MATTHEW WATERS

Financing and delivering large scale communities We have the finance and we have the demand for new large scale communities argues Matthew Waters

Matthew Waters is a partner with Bevan Brittan LLP, lawyers for the public, private and third sectors

60

Planning in London

Financing and delivering large scale communities – I think the broad context of this policy objective (and the title of the recent TCPA conference) is that we have the finance, or access to the finance/capital waiting and we have demand, a level of demand that means we need new large scale communities.

The title of the mini-session we contributed to at the conference – local leadership and innovation – gets to the crux of what we need to focus on, in legal, policy and commercial terms, to arrive at an environment where that capital can be deployed, housing delivered at a new level of scale and demand met.

Local leadership – I would say perhaps more than just leadership. What I think we need is a structure, in the broad sense, that places the locus of financial incentive, legal powers, determination of outputs and coordination of stakeholders at a local / regional level.

And then an overarching legal framework – of planning, funding, delivery and tenure – that allows space for parties to come together at that local / regional level and be innovative over how the needs of their area can be met; the country has a housing crisis but it is of course not a single problem with a single answer.

The answer and approach for Bexley is not the same as Tees Valley. To meet the national supply challenge we need local solutions. Central government acting to update the regulatory framework to create that environment and powers to ensure those at a local level meet their side of the bargain. In that context I believe, and history would suggest, we have a real chance of success.

From a legal perspective the White Paper does much to support this approach, focusing on supply side issues rather than trying to further stimulate demand. Although there is an obvious area where it risks undermining the scope for innovation and new locally drive supply solutions. However, what housing policy will emerge from the general election is of course an unknown.

Crucially, the wider legal and financial structure for local delivery is, for the first time in a number of years, moving to this agenda. So the larger ideas within and behind the White Paper – such as around new town development corporations – are complimenting what is already happening. There have been two big changes in recent years in particular that set the context for this – business rate retention and devolution.

Wider context – financial incentive A clear historical barrier to supply has been the lack of incentive at a local level; a point well made in the Centre for Policy Studies Pink Planning paper referred to in the White Paper. Not only is there no incentive to provide planning per-

mission, there is no substantive financial incentive to supply.

The New Homes Bonus was a step in the right direction, but the game is set to be completely changed, albeit slightly indirectly, through the ending of the revenue support grant and the 100 per cent retention of business rates which will come in from 2020 (although there has been recent speculation this may be delayed). Assuming that it does come in, driving growth will become not only a policy objective but a financial necessity for local authorities. Authorities will need to deliver economic growth in their area to avoid being left scrapping along the financial safety net level, and in nearly all cases that means driving housing supply.

For example, we've been working with authorities around the humber estuary whose number one priority is industrial regeneration of the humber;. Just taking one of the authorities – North East Lincolnshire – they have a target of 12,000 jobs. To deliver that level of economic growth and the financial benefits for the authority and the area they have identified they need 9,000 new homes.

Wider context – locally based powers The financial incentive for finding a way and driving housing supply at a local level has become very clear. A really significant change. The next part of course is that there needs to be viable ways of achieving the supply. The devolution movement, although somewhat stalled, has done much to show what can be done and quite possibly paved the way for the sort of new town development corporations referred to in the White Paper.

For example, we've been working with Cambridgeshire and Peterborough on the Devolution deal recently signed. Again, you have the context of driving growth, and Cambridge is a huge growth area, and you have a recognition that this is best driven at a local level. Not local defined by district authority boundaries but by a more natural economic area – 2 city councils, 4 districts, county and the LEP. In that deal as well as passing down funding to the mayor – £100m housing and infrastructure fund – there are a number of devolved powers: power for spatial planning framework, chair land commission, chair joint assets board and establish mayoral development corporation. Land assembly including control over public land, planning and funding held at a local level with clear financial incentive for delivery.

Emerging local supply solutions As part of this new landscape local authority led supply solutions are rapidly growing. Housing companies, largely financed by government range of tenures – PRS, homelessness, affordable rent. We are starting to see these develop into more sophisticated and scaleable supply solutions. For

example, we are working with Brighton & Hove City Council who are forming a new joint venture with Hyde to jointly fund 1000 new homes around living rent. Another example is Hounslow where the Council in combination with its wholly owned housing group Lampton 360 funding and delivering in partnership with Wilmot Dixon affordable, market sale and market rent housing across multiple sites. Both examples of local authorities being proative, taking on more responsibility for housing supply (and on-going ownership) and recognising that more can be achieved through partnering with other organisations.

These sort of examples could be early prototypes of significant locally led supply models. What we need is a legal framework that offers space and certainty for these models to continue to evolve and for the larger scale opportunities and partnerships to come through.

Housing White Paper The White Paper does much to support this. The focus on planning is good – capacity and issues like space standards. I think the housing delivery test could be exactly the right sort of approach to work with the wider legal framework – local authorities have clear financial incentive and need to take on the leadership of determining how and where supply can be met through their local plans. It is equally right that central government has a stick to ensure that happens.

The two areas that are of most relevance to this agenda are the potential for new town development corporations and the new broader outlook on tenancies.

A new type of development corporation, building on ideas in the Pink Planning paper around aligning stakeholders at a structural level including investors and local authorities, is a very exciting one. Especially against the broader backdrop of financial incentives that now exist. Exactly how these work should be a local question – devolution and mayoral development corporations may fit some; evolved and enhanced housing delivery vehicle type structures could be another.

To allow communities to determine what the need is in their area and to facilitate institutional investment in the broader approach to tenancies is very welcome, both from a planning perspective re: the proposal around Discounted Market Rent and the ideas around the consultation on institutional investment into build to rent.

One part of the white paper the Government should be very careful and clear on is the RTB on non-Council owned rental products. As outlined here an overall landscape for locally driven large scale supply solutions is emerging. It needs space and certainty, and this part of the White Paper risks offending both principles.

The Government has followed up on the understandable concern to this mooted policy with assurance that it is an antiavoidance measure regarding Council social housing and that the Government want to support local authorities being more proactive in housing supply solutions including use of housing vehicles. There may be clarity in government as to the sort of flagrant avoidance measures for council housing which could be implemented without disturbing this wider framework but certainty is needed. n

Save the Date ...

TCPA Spring Conference

Let’s get building!

Financing and delivering new large-scale communities 23 March 2017 Coin Street Neighbourhood Centre, London SE1 9NH

In the last 12 months there have been significant and rapid changes to both the policy and financial environments in which local authorities are trying to bring forward new large-scale housing developments. In this post-Brexit environment, in which Government spending remains tightly constrained, what are the options for funding infrastructure in a timely and cost-effective way?

What sort of new approaches to finance and delivery are innovative local authorities now taking?

This conference will consider what we can learn from past methods of delivery, including development corporations and private-sector-led new towns; and will look forward to consider how we can innovate to create the high-quality, large-scale new communities we need in today’s rapidly changing environment. Confirmed speakers include Gavin Barwell MP, Minister of State for Housing and Planning, who will speak on the Housing White Paper.

Join this important discussion by booking your place now!

Book online at http://www.tcpa.org.uk/Pages/Events/Category/all-events

Issue 102 July-September 2017

61

PARIS CITY MAKING | JOHN LETHERLAND

The role of landscape in city making The masterplan celebrates the riverine nature of this part of Paris and would help to restore the unique identity of the area explains John Letherland

John Letherland is an independent masterplanner and urban designer. He currently teaches an MA in Urban Landscape at the Kent School of Architecture, Canterbury. The Student Research and Masterplan Team were Liz Paola Arias Ruiz Diaz, Jie Huang, Xianyang Wang, Yang Guo and Zhou Liu.

62

Planning in London

Most of the world’s great cities have a clear and coherent mental map; New York is known for its strict grid-iron plan and Central Park, Amsterdam for its concentric network of canals and Berlin for its grand axes. London is less formal and concentric in nature but distinctive nevertheless, made up from a network of small towns and villages that have gradually coalesced over time. Of them all, Paris is probably the most treasured for its grand boulevards, formal gardens and majestic palaces.

They have in common an infrastructure of community, commerce, movement and architecture that is very much a construct of centuries of human endeavour. However, underlying this is the imprint of the natural landscape which first gave birth to these cities, and this is much less apparent in today’s urban morphology.

Over the last year, I have been working with a group of MA students at the Kent School of Architecture to explore how our urban landscapes have been shaped and influenced by the natural landscape in which they are located, and how we can use this knowledge to create places that are truly liveable and successfully accommodate population growth. Our work this year focussed on Paris, with the objective of exploring the geography from which it is derived, to reveal the impact that the natural landscape has had on the structure and evolution of this particular city, and to use this knowledge to show how a greater understanding of landscape might reveal the potential for growth and place making.

The Landscape Context of Paris Like most fluvial cities, the lifeblood of Paris is its river and, the reason for its very existence has always been its waterways.

The valley of the River Seine has attracted settlers since the Neolithic Age. The river was once broad and shallow flowing through a flat, marshy valley. Numerous islands were found between the river banks that provided opportunities to ford the river; they were also attractive to early settlers as more easily defendable territory with a natural moat. Long before the Roman Conquest, the Gallic tribe of the Parisii built a fort on a small island that stood in the middle of the Seine.

An important port, Lutetia was connected to the right and left banks by two wooden bridges. This island is known as the Isle de la Cité and even today is considered to be the spiritual and historical centre of Paris.

The River Seine has gradually changed its course over the millennia, long before the appearance of humans. Nearing the end of its long journey to the coast, the wide meander it formed on the right bank became redundant when the waters eventually established the shorter, straighter channel it follows today. The large ‘oxbow lake’ that resulted was used by

PARIS: RIVERS

PARIS: RIVERS & ORIGINAL MEANDER

BELOW: Paris Rivers & Growth Image Credit: MA Urban Landscape Students, Kent School of Architecture

PARIS: RIVERS & CONTOURS

PARIS: RIVERS & GROWTH RINGS

>>>

Issue 102 July-September 2017

63

PARIS CITY MAKING | JOHN LETHERLAND

RIGHT: The Paris coat of arms BELOW: Paris Layers Image Credit: MA Urban Landscape Students, Kent School of Architecture

the early inhabitants of Paris as a natural defensive moat and so was an early landscape influence on the morphology of the city. The marshy enclave of land that it surrounded became a known as Le Marais; it was drained in the 11th century and became one of the first areas of Paris to be developed when the settlement grew beyond the islands.

Over time, as the city grew, the banks were reinforced to protect the city from flooding and the backwash from passing boats. The river channel has gradually become narrower and deeper, and wharves for shipping were constructed. Trade and wealth followed, and powerful merchants organised themselves under the protection of the Guild of the Boatmen of Paris or Nautes Parisiens. This powerful corporation has played a prominent role in the city’s politics, administration and economy through the centuries. They became responsible for the administration of the capital in 1260 and gave Paris its present coat of arms, a silver vessel which sails fiercely over the waters.

Tributaries of the Seine The Seine is not the only river that has helped to shape Paris; several secondary streams and water-courses also drained into the Seine (both north and south) within the urban centre of Paris. Although mostly hidden now in underground culverts, they have played their part in affecting the shapes and patterns of Paris and their strong presence is still evident in the street network, place names and the undulations of the urban landscape. These are gradually being mapped by the students to create a better understanding of the origins of the city.

The rivers of the right and left banks have differing characters and histories, although all played their part in bringing the Parisian communities to life and sustaining them by providing water and food supplies, navigation channels, power for mills and tanneries as well as a means of waste disposal.

The Ourcq river for example, was adapted in the 17th century to become the Canal Saint-Martin, supplying Paris with water and enabling the transport of freight. The Stream of Montreuil once flowed from Montreuil to the Seine, and where it entered the main river became the present port of the Arsenal. The moat surrounding the fortress of the Bastille was fed by this stream but it has long since disappeared under Paris.

The ‘lost’ rivers have also provided many of its most notable and historic place-names. La Grange-Batelière was covered by the street of the same name. Le Ruisseau du Bac was a small creek located in what is currently the 7th Arrondissement and owes its name to a ferry which existed here before the construction of the Royal Bridge. It was culverted long ago, but its course can still be traced by the Rue

64

Planning in London

PARIS: RIVERS & BOULEVARDS

PARIS: RIVERS & URBAN VILLAGES

PARIS: RIVERS & GREEN SPACES

PARIS: RIVERS & INDUSTRY

>>>

Issue 102 July-September 2017

65

PARIS CITY MAKING | JOHN LETHERLAND

>>>

PARIS: RIVERS, GREEN SPACES & BOULEVARDS

du Bac which was built above it.

Given the city’s massive growth in the 18th and 19th centuries, the need to rid Paris of its waste dictated that the central tributaries were culverted as part of the Paris drainage system.

Le Ruisseau de Ménilmontant that once descended from the hills of Belleville, Montmartre and Pre-Saint-Gervais and circled the hill of Menilmontant was channeled and transformed in the sixteenth century into an open sewer known as ‘Le Grand Égout’. The course of the river was modified and channeled into a large loop around the northern limits of the city, following the original course of the redundant meander in the Seine.

Today Les Grands Boulevards of Paris follow largely the same route.

A Masterplan for La Bièvre In the post-industrial era, it is these tributary river valleys that are offer-

PARIS: RIVERS, GREEN SPACES, BOULEVARDS & URBAN VILLAGES

66

Planning in London

PARIS: RIVERS, GREEN SPACES,

RIGHT:

Map of Paris 1615 BELOW: Historic photos of La Bievre Image Credits: Jean-Baptiste Gallot et Alain Passerel

ing up opportunities for new growth and intensification, through the redevelopment of former industrial land. La Bièvre, once the largest and most important tributary river in Paris, became the subject of our more detailed study.

As Paris began to expand and industrialise, the Bièvre was harnessed as a resource for drinking water, food and transport, and communities began to grow along its banks. The original course of the river was deliberately split into divergent waterways to create more river frontage, and in the process many islands (or ‘Ilôts’) were created between the numerous channels. The river and the islands referred to above are no longer visible, but their role in the history of Paris is very significant; the neighborhood around Les Gobelins in the 13th Arrondissment became a focus for tapestry makers, textile fabricators, cleaners, dyers and other similar craftsmen who needed abundant water to do their work. Unfortunately, over time these businesses dumped large amounts of waste into the river’s once-clear waters. Centuries of overuse and abuse from the businesses that depended on the Bièvre polluted it so badly that it became a foul smelling danger to people, thick with industry waste and the blood of animals. In 1875 Haussmann decided that the Bièvre was a health hazard for Parisians and had to go; by 1912, the Parisian half of the river was completely covered over and the urban Bièvre is now ‘lost’ within the sewage system.

BOULEVARDS, URBAN VILLAGES & INDUSTRY

>>>

Issue 102 July-September 2017

67

PARIS CITY MAKING | JOHN LETHERLAND

>>>

However, the disappearance of a river into the city sewers is considered by many local people today to be a loss.

Although eliminated from the city, local residents have been calling for the Bièvre to be restored as a surface river and in 2003, approximately 200 metres of the Bièvre was re-opened upstream in the Parc des Près in Fresnessome.

In response to the historic importance of this part of Paris, the students undertook a detailed study of La Bièvre between River Seine and the ‘Jardin des Gobelins’ in the 5th and 13th Arrondissements. They researched and mapped many areas in detail, particularly those created in the second half of the 20th century where the neighbourhood has become impenetrable and disconnected from the surrounding context.

However, even today there remain memories of the original course of the river and strong evidence of the growing interest in restoring this landscape feature.

In order to reveal what this part of Paris is capable of becoming, the students undertook to create a masterplan proposal that would celebrate the Bièvre valley and open up a newly-restored urban landscape. The new linear park they proposed would provide a healthier part of the city by opening up walking and cycling routes, new green spaces alongside the river and new development opportunities through transformation of the backlands.

This masterplan exploits the possibilities offered by the site history as well as the sinuous curves of the hidden river.

The new urban morphology of buildings and garden spaces

BELOW: Combined mini-masterplans by students Image Credit: MA Urban Landscape Students, Kent School of Architecture

A MASTERPLAN TO REVEAL LA BIÈVRE THE LOST RIVER OF PARIS

% $

.#$ %&'()*++,-(# !"#$ %&'()*$#+,*-

#

./,0$#),*$ 12#32//$452(0$++$

!

!"#$ %&'()*++,-(#

"

6"/(7"8*(#$4 %$)4!23$+,/)

9+"8$4%&:*"+,$

68

Planning in London

6,/,;<")*$#=+"/)48#$"*$%43>4*?$46'4.#3"/4@"/%)8"=$41*(%$/*)A !" #$%&'( )*+%,-./(0/ 01234567 1" #(0%23*40 5(0%6347893:)'; 89: $6123 <" #$=.->(40-7( ?(%')%,34@3..(%A3*>(''(; ;912<123 =123 B" #(%C)4?-. 93D).7-E*(; >?764@96 F" G)4( ?$H*07(4'-7I; A17B14%C91D

deliberately emphasise the shapes and patterns of the original watercourse, and existing buildings that were originally designed to sit alongside of the river are retained and reused in the plan.

The overall proposal is a collaboration between the whole group, and was conceived to be implemented incrementally as a series of inter-connected ‘mini-masterplans’. The compo-

nent parts combine to create a successful masterplan for a newly-restored Bièvre valley that works as a whole, as well as a collection of discrete parts with their own individual urban character. Close collaboration between the group ensured that each section connects seamlessly with the neighbouring sections of those designed by others.

The masterplan celebrates the riverine nature of this part of

Paris and would help to restore the unique identity of the area.

The project improves linkages throughout the area by revealing and harnessing the historic course of the Bièvre, and explores the positive role that the natural landscape can play in placemaking in an urban setting.

Now begins the job of persuading the good people of Paris to support and implement the masterplan… n

ABOVE: La Bièvre then and now Image Credits: JeanBaptiste Gallot et Alain Passerel

Issue 102 July-September 2017

69

HOUSING ALLOCATIONS | ALICE ROBERTS AND NEIL SINDEN

The over-allocation of sites for housing Alice Roberts and Neil Sinden say the over-allocation of sites for housing in local plans is hugely damaging and calls into question the whole system

Alice Roberts is a Green Spaces campaigner, and Neil Sinden is director of CPREâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s London branch

70

Planning in London

The time has come to rethink the way we plan for housing in London. There is now mounting evidence, which we should ignore no longer, of the scale of the clash between meeting the desperate need for new homes and the importance of protecting and growing the green space which is increasingly valued by existing communities. If we are to safeguard and enhance the qualities of London as a place for diverse communities to live and thrive we all need to rise to this challenge and call out the absurdities of the current planning system.

The rot set in with the imposition of the National Planning Policy Framework in 2012. The need to streamline the reams of planning guidance that had grown like topsy in recent years was obvious. But the underlying ideological drive to reduce the influence of public planning policy in decisions over new development was less welcome. The considerable benefits of earlier policy development involving urban capacity studies, a design-led response to regeneration, a sequential approach to land release, and a more effective approach to monitoring policy implementation were also largely ignored. And now we find ourselves trying to get the best from a damaged and under-resourced system. We owe it to ourselves as well as future generations to find a better way forward.

The symptoms of this flawed system are all too obvious.

They can be found throughout the capital. The most obvious is the lack of realism that has now infected almost every emerg-

ing plan. Councils are being asked to allocate land in their Local Plans to meet a Greater London target of 50,000 new homes per year, though fewer than 25,000 have actually been constructed in each of the past 20 years.

Pressure from central Government and financial stresses on councils which need to raise more money from council tax and other sources are combining to push councils to set unrealistic targets which will never be met.

Redbridge Council, for example, is proposing a housing target of nearly 19,000 or 1,200 units per year. We calculate the rate would need to be nearer 1,500 per year to meet the target in the plan period. But nothing like that number has been built in Redbridge in recent times: last year 580 units were built and over the last 20 years the average has been 474 per year.

Thus Redbridge are allocating over three times the amount of land actually likely to be needed in their Local Plan period, including five large Green Belt sites, two with high quality cricket and football pitches used by communities across East London and beyond. National sporting bodies have said these facilities are irreplaceable. An area the size of 180 football pitches of protected green space will be lost if the Planning Inspector agrees Redbridge Councilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s plans.

Targets are putting totally unnecessary pressure on protected green spaces. The Green Belt sites in Redbridge could easily be saved even if the borough had ambitious housing

targets.

This over-allocation of sites is widespread and hugely damaging. It is having a direct impact on the Metropolitan Green Belt where over 250 sites and counting are identified in Local Plans for housing developments. It is also simply poor planning to allocate sites unnecessarily which could be used to meet other pressing needs like schools, surgeries or transport infrastructure.

We hope to see build rates increase to meet the growing need and help solve London’s housing crisis, but it is plainly unrealistic to expect rates to double or triple. Redbridge faces the same issues as the rest of London – it cannot force the private sector to build at higher rates, and there is limited funding for new social housing which, historically, like in the 1960s and ‘70s, pushed build rates up to much higher levels. We must not, however, return to the failed housing models of the past. A new generation of high-rise towers is neither necessary nor desirable.

The push for high targets is not the only problem. Weak arguments for ‘exceptional circumstances’ and questionable Green Belt Review methodologies are also being used to allocate protected land. Redbridge’s most recent Green Belt Review redefined ‘countryside’ and argued that the existence of hedgerows created a barrier which somehow lessened the parcel of land’s merits in terms of Green Belt purposes, for example. On that basis, if we cut the hedgerows down, the merits would rise.

We are well-used to the reports, largely funded by the development industry, claiming that the Green Belt is the barrier to meeting London’s housing needs. But while the evidence to support those claims is lacking, the dismantling of London’s Green Belt is happening right now and in a non-strategic, almost scatter gun fashion.

Something needs to be done. First and foremost, we need to rediscover and nurture popular support for a strong and well-resourced planning system that can secure the public interest in the way in which land and buildings are used • The current Mayor’s strong commitment to protecting Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land is a welcome first step. Evidence shows that when developers and landowners receive the wrong signals from political leaders – and think protections might be loosened – speculation and opportunism rise, increasing pressure on protected land. The

London Mayor, and his successors, must continue to send a clear message that they will not allow unnecessary and inappropriate development of London’s vital Green Belt and green spaces. These messages must be backed up by action: the Mayor should make more use his powers to refuse applications for unnecessary and inappropriate development.

• While build rates do not change, brownfield sites are left idle while greenfield sites are developed. This is the worst of all worlds. The supply of sites must be based on realistic targets and councils should not be required to allocate sites for double the number of homes likely to be built.

• Local councils need to prioritise the reuse of wasted space in their areas for new housing and associated infrastructure.

This should be based on a thorough survey of existing and new brownfield sites suitable for new development. And there should be a clear requirement that all suitable brownfield sites are built out before any protected green site is considered for development.

• Finally, to tackle London’s housing crisis effectively we need much more affordable housing, not simply more housing.

Simply adding to the stock of market housing will not bring house prices or rents down to any significant degree. There is a clear need to refocus housing policy on delivering genuinely affordable homes for rent as well as shared ownership.

It is not inevitable that we have to build on Green Belt or other protected land. Let’s build the new homes we need while leaving our valuable green spaces for future generations. We can use the many available sites to ensure we build more houses, particularly affordable homes. Or we can – unnecessarily – lose our precious, protected land once and for all.

The Mayor and councils should have exacting targets to help tackle London’s housing crisis, but not completely unrealistic ones which force the unnecessary release of Green Belt.

The recent Housing White Paper contains some signs of hope. A renewed focus on the need to make efficient use of land and avoid building at low densities is welcome, as is the emphasis on delivery (although there is a danger that a punitive increase in land supply requirements will simply backfire).

Reaffirmation of the core purposes and value of the Green Belt is also long overdue. But there is a long way to go before we have a sensible basis on which to plan to meet housing needs without unnecessarily placing our green spaces at risk. While the fundamental overhaul of the NPPF may take some time, the current review of the London Plan presents an early opportunity to think afresh. Let’s grasp it. n

ABOVE and LEFT: Oakfield Playing Fields in the London Borough of Redbridge, currently allocated in their draft Local Plan as a site for housing

Issue 102 July-September 2017

71

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT | AMY GILHAM

Industrial revolution – better planning guidance for business Better planning policy guidance will help but it is not the panacea to the employment land conundrum facing London says Amy Gilham

Amy Gilham is Director of Economics at Turley

72

Planning in London

Within London it is understood that continued growth, wellbeing and prosperity depends on tackling the “housing crisis”. How we do this is a matter of much debate, but the principle of providing homes to meet housing needs is understood and accepted. As the planning debate in London has focused on housing, this has crowded out consideration of related land use demands – notably demand for employment land.

As the population grows, so too do the demands on manufacturing and logistics sectors, particularly those linked to ecommerce. The location requirements of these sectors are also changing, linked to consumer expectations and preferences.

The requires planners to be able to think of the local economy of a place as an interconnected system, thus planning for housing growth may entail a greater need for space to accommodate last mile delivery centres for example. The heavy focus on housing (by central and local government alike) has precluded this occurring and we are now starting to witness some unintended consequences.

The capital is home to some of the country’s key industrial hubs such as Park Royal, Europe’s largest industrial estate. But this land is being lost at an alarming rate, leading to a lack of sites and premises for industrial occupiers to locate and grow.

This is largely a result of land values commanded by alternative uses such as housing displacing employment land users to increasingly peripheral or sub-optimal locations.

Questions need to be asked about why the planning system is not currently providing a robust basis for identifying and meeting the needs of businesses in the manufacturing and logistics sectors. Turley has been looking in to this issue over the last two years and has identified some of the barriers to more effective planning for business needs.

We have found that 50 per cent of local planning authorities rely on employment land evidence that pre-dates the publication of the NPPF. Clearly this raises questions about the validity of the evidence in the face of economic changes which have happened in the post-recession period.

Our most recent research has found that employment land evidence is inconsistently prepared across England. We have found that the generalised nature of the PPG means that employment land evidence often omits consideration of specific industrial sectors, and enables a wide range of differing assumptions to be applied to the calculations of employment land need. Business engagement in the process is variable and in many employment land studies occupier requirements are masked by treating industrial (B1c and B2) and warehouse (B8) uses homogenously. Some of the findings are shown by

Industrial Revolution Better planning guidance for business

geography (see map opposite).

Implications for London The employment land situation in London is particularly parlous with supercharged land values for alternative uses and employment land supply diminishing at an alarming rate. New developments such as “urban logistics” are driving considerable growth in the demand for centrally located sites, linked to the rapid rise of e-commerce. Growth in otherwise traditional sectors also increases the need for land in certain locations.

Any expansion that Heathrow airport sees in coming years will drive an increase in freight cargo and there will be knock on effects for delivery and storage facilities in the surrounding area. Similarly, food manufacturing to stock London’s cafes, sushi bars, coffee shops and hotels for example is seeing growth. These need to be close to the areas they serve in order to deliver fresh produce to consumers to meet key service periods.

There is also a big unresolved question of London-wide

Research findings We examined a sample of employment land reviews for 10% of local authorities to illustrate key issues arising in each region.

The results are presented anonymously.

Yorkshire and Humber • There are differences in the treatment of the logistics sector between local authorities within the same functional economic market area (FEMA).

• Even where the logistics sector is recognised as playing a critical supporting role to manufacturing businesses, no allowances are applied to ensure its future growth and development through the supply of land.

North West

• Studies reviewed within the region highlight different approaches to applying a margin of choice, ranging from three to five years’ land supply.

• It is apparent that industry engagement in putting evidence together is variable and it is not clear how industry views have informed the findings and recommendations of studies.

• Key aspects of the methodology set out in the PPG are not consistently applied, with one study making no allowances for employment land losses, thereby potentially under-estimating land requirements over a local plan period.

• There is evidence of the needs of different business sectors being combined into a “general industrial” category, potentially masking the distinct location, workforce and property requirements of specific business sectors.

London • The needs of businesses requiring B1c, B2 and B8 property are jointly considered. Specific needs of these different types of activities are not distinguished.

• The studies reviewed are also unclear as to adjustments made to account for land losses.

Midlands • A lack of documented, meaningful industry engagement.

• In some cases B2 (industrial) and B8 (warehousing) requirements are reported as a single requirement, potentially masking nuances in industry requirements.

• There is evidence of “off-the-shelf” employment forecasts being used to estimate need. Limited or no checks are made on how representative these forecasts are and no adjustments are subsequently made for local circumstances and business needs.

• There is evidence of relatively conservative assumptions being applied in relation to margin of choice in land supply, with some authorities applying as little as two years’ supply.

• No specific adjustments are made to account for land losses affecting the logistics sector.

South East • There is evidence of the industrial and logistics sectors being combined in the estimation of land requirements.

• Where employment forecasts are used as a basis for estimating the need for land, adjustments to forecasts are made in relation to general land use classifications as opposed to specific industrial sectors. This is an imprecise approach to attributing need.

South West

• Some studies provide no guidance to local planning authorities on what level or margin of choice or flexibility should be provided for in estimating land needs.

• Evidence from the South West shows that sub-regional planning for employment land has in some cases been informed by clear industry engagement.

• It is questionable as to the extent to which industry engagement has meaningfully informed some studies.

• Unlike other studies reviewed, in the South West we found evidence of employment forecasts being adjusted to take account of market realities and industry views.

versus locally assessed needs for employment land. The Greater London Authority (GLA) has published its’ supply assessment (2016) and more recently a demand assessment (June 2017) for industrial land in the capital. This is beginning to set the scene for how Sadiq Khan’s London Plan will guide employment land use in the future. Local planning authorities also research and publish their own employment land analysis to inform their Local Plans.

But how are the needs of London as a whole balanced with local needs? For example, while the GLA advocates use of their own employment forecasts to London Boroughs, the exact way in which these are applied varies, with authorities drawing on a wide range of sources alongside the GLAs forecasts. There is also a disparity between the dates of forecasts. Different base dates and forecasting periods are meaningful in different locations, reflecting wider policy processes and timeframes around development of Local Plans (or the London Plan in the case of

the GLA).

A call for action It is clear that the way that we plan for employment land is not working, leading to a rapidly diminishing stock of the best land in the capital and businesses being displaced and priced out. The important links between different land uses are also not fully understood or taken into consideration in plan making. Our Industrial Revolution report makes 11 recommendations for improving the PPG to provide consistency and parity of employment land assessments.

While we believe that better planning policy guidance will help, it is not the panacea to the employment land conundrum.

Ultimately, there is a need for all parties to consider needs and solutions not just through a technical exercise but on the ground. Engagement with the business community, both developers and occupiers, is key to local plan making. n

REFERENCES: 1 Turley, for SEGRO, 2017, Keep London Working http://www.segro.com/media/ keeplondonworking?sc_lang=e n 2 Turley, 2015, Land That Time Forgot http://www.turley.co.uk/intelligence/land-time-forgot-planning-employment-land 3 Turley, 2017, Industrial Revolution: Better planning guidance for business http://www.turley.co.uk/intelligence/industrial-revolution 4 GLA, 2016, Industrial Land Supply and Economy Study 5 GLA, 2017, London Industrial Land Demand Study.

Issue 102 July-September 2017

73

14 September 2017 8am - 6.30pm QEII Centre Westminster London SW1P

London’s infrastructure priorities under the new government

brought to you by

headline partner

DELEGATE TICKETS FROM £250 + VAT visit www.londoninfrastructuresummit.com LAST 100 PLACES REMAINING LONDON FIRST is pleased to present our 4th London Infrastructure Summit, taking place on Thursday 14 September 2017 at the QEII Centre, Westminster, London.

As the dust settles from the recent general election, the implications of the new government for London’s infrastructure are gradually becoming clearer. The London Infrastructure Summit builds on the success of previous years and brings together over 500 delegates.

Speakers include:

Jules Pipe CBE Deputy Mayor, Planning, Regeneration and Skills, GLA

dinner partner

Michèle Dix CBE Managing Director, Crossrail 2

Mike Brown MVO Commisioner, Transport for London

Professor Tony Travers Chair, London Finance Commission

Gavin Barwell MP, Minister of State for Housing and Valerie Mark Carne Planning Shawcross CBE Chief Executive, Deputy Mayor Network Rail for Transport GLA

conference partners

conference associates

network zone partner

H[KLELWRU EULH¿QJ VHVVLRQV

supporting partners

For all sponsorship, exhibitor or delegate queries, please contact: bchester@londonfirst.co.uk

www.londoninfrastructuresummit.com

TRAINING AND RECRUITMENT | ANDREW CLOSE

Growing your own planners As more of the current workforce moves to retirement and there is competition for new recruits, how can we ‘prepare the ground’ for the next generation of planners? asks Andrew Close

Andrew Close MRTPI is head of careers, education & professional development at the Royal Town Planning Institute.

The Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) is the professional body for town planning in the UK and the largest institute for planners in Europe. We’ve kick-started work on new pathways into the planning profession to diversify and improve access and address the pipeline through two new activities: bursaries and apprenticeships.

We know investment in on-the-job training and degree education through day-release part-time postgraduate degrees has worked well in the past. There has been a recent uptake in this model: growing – or converting – new planners from other disciplines or careers.

The RTPI’s Board of Trustees therefore went on the front foot and started a bursary fund to help universities to ‘sow the seeds’ for choosing planning as a career. Now in its third year, the bursary has attracted undergraduates from architecture and geography but also from publishing, history and even zoology! The reach of the scheme is reliant on contributions from the sector, so if you’re interested in CSR and sponsorship please contact careers@rtpi.org.uk The issue of capacity was not lost on the recent Communities and Local Government Select Committee on the homebuilding industry in listening to oral evidence given by the RTPI’s head of policy. The Committee recommended that authorities “must show a commitment to this planning and ensure there are incentives and support in place for employees that are seeking further training and formal planning qualifications, such as those facilitated by the RTPI.” The Housing White Paper recently discussed options to “boost LPA capacity to deliver” and “address skills shortages” and these issues are not new. Demand and supply of planners often fluctuates with development cycles and spending rounds.

So how can the planning industry ‘plant more perennials’ and increase numbers of planners? We know that planners working in private consultancy are concerned about knock-on impact on infrastructure delivery and want to work together with the public sector to ensure a strong planning system. There are indications of difficulties in attracting, or retaining, staff in both sectors. Our research in North West England showed that two thirds of councils are worried about meeting statutory duties and rely on the goodwill of professional staff.

So as well as bursaries, we’re coordinating activity on a new scheme combining on-the-job training with degree education.

The intention is to support employers paying the new apprenticeship levy to use those funds to attract talented young people into town planning. The first step was securing recognition from government for a Chartered Town Planner degree apprenticeship in March 2017.

A degree apprenticeship for planning should mean school leavers and some graduates can earn a wage while being sponsored to complete a RTPI-accredited degree without paying large

student fees. Hopefully employers and universities offering RTPIaccredited planning courses should be able to start to train the first apprentices from September 2018. Our existing education routes to professional membership of the RTPI will continue.

We are being guided by an employer group and supported by a wider consultative group of other employers, universities and training providers. Reflecting the various ground conditions across the planning ‘landscape’, the project is co-chaired by planners from both the public and private sectors. Working together is important “at a time when recruitment in the planning industry is extremely challenging this provides a fantastic opportunity to develop and support local people wanting to work in planning” (co-chair Philip Ridley, Head of Planning & Coastal Management at Suffolk Coastal and Waveney District Councils).

Apprenticeships could open up “a healthy pipeline of town planners to help deliver jobs, growth and homes.” (co-chair Richard Lemon, Director of Planning at CBRE).

So what are the next steps for ‘cultivation’? We’re tasked with developing the learning outcomes, knowledge and skills and an end-point assessment with professional recognition through the RTPI APC process.

The next twelve months will be a busy and key period for the programme to gain the necessary government approvals. The RTPI has so far been contacted by over 160 employers expressing interest in employing apprentices. Registrations on the RTPI’s current technician apprenticeship course for 16-19 year olds have also doubled this year. So the investment ‘fertiliser’ and support is looking strong for later in 2018 once the scheme is up and running! n Andrew is responsible for Institute-wide education policy and accreditation procedures, student advice and support including the new RTPI Bursary project, member’s lifelong learning and CPD monitoring and standards, and the RTPI Future Planners volunteer initiative to promote planning as a career choice to young people.

Issue 102 July-September 2017

75

Interested in Londonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s past & Londonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s future?

Would you like to get a behind-the-scenes look at the forces that are shaping the future of London and discover a host of fascinating public programmes, tours, lectures and other convenings that celebrate this great city?

WWW.LONDONSOCIETY.ORG .UK/MEMBERSHIP 76

DIRECTORY DIRECTORY

Planning and Environment Reference Guide

sponsored by

Please notify any changes immediately by e-mail to jonathan.manns@colliers.com cc to planninginlondon@mac.com with the subject â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;planning in london directoryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;.

LONDON BOROUGHS DIRECTORY

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Barking Town Hall Barking IG11 7LU 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 Mark Bass President of Barking and Dagenham Chamber of Commerce info@bdchamber.co.uk 020 8591 6966

Jane Richardson Strategic Planning and Regeneration Jane.richardson@bexley.gov.uk 020 3045 5712 David Bryce-Smith Development Housing and Community david.bryce-smith@bexley.gov.uk 020 3045 5718

Stephen Heatley Head of Housing & Regeneration Strategy & Partnerships stephen.heatley@bexley.gov.uk 0203 045 5837 Susan Clark Head of Development Control Sue.clark@bexley.gov.uk 020 3045 5761

020 8359 3000 www.barnet.gov.uk/planning Andrew Travers Chief Executive andrew.travers@barnet.gov.uk 020 8359 7850 Joe Henry Interim Director of Planning, Environment & Regeneration Joe.henry@barnet.gov.uk 020 8559 4620

Annie Hampson Chief Planning Officer and Development Director annie.hampson@cityoflondon.gov.uk 020 7332 1700

London Borough of Bromley Civic Centre Stockwell Close Bromley BR1 3UH 020 8464 3333 www.bromley.gov.uk Doug Patterson Chief Executive Doug.patterson@bromley.gov.uk 020 8313 4354

Lisa Thornley Development Control Support Officer lisa.thornley@bromley.gov.uk 020 8461 7566 London Borough of Brent Brent Civic Centre Engineers Way Wembley HA9 0FJ 020 8937 1200 www.brent.gov.uk Stephen Weeks Head of Planning Stephen.weeks@brent.gov.uk 020 8937 5238 Chris Walker Assistant Director, Planning & Development chris.walker@brent.gov.uk 020 8937 5246 Dave Carroll Head of New Initiatives dave.carroll@brent.gov.uk 020 8937 5202 Aktar Choudhury Operational Director of Planning & Design aktar.choudhury@brent.gov.uk 020 8937 1764

0208 303 7777 www.bexley.gov.uk/planning

London Borough of Croydon Development & Environment Bernard Weatherill House 8 Mint Walk Croydon CR0 1EA 020 8726 6000 https://www.croydon.gov.uk/planningandre generation Nathan Elvery Chief Executive Nathan.elvery@croydon.gov.uk Jo Negrini Executive Director of Development and Environment Jo.negrini@croydon.gov.uk

London Borough of Camden Town Hall Extension Argyle Street WC1H 8EQ 020 7974 4444 www.camden.gov.uk

Vacant Director of Planning & Strategic Transport Tim Naylor Head of Spatial Planning tim.naylor@croydon.gov.uk

Mike Cooke, Chief Executive Mike.cooke@camden.gov.uk

Pete Smith Head of Development Management pete.smith@croydon.gov.uk

Rachel Stoppard Deputy Chief Executive Rachel.stoppard@camden.gov.uk Frances Wheat Acting Assistant Director for Regeneration & Planning frances.wheat@camden.gov.uk 020 7974 5630

Rachel McConnell Team Manager North Rachel.mcconnell@brent.gov.uk 020 8937 5228 London Borough of Bexley Civic Offices Broadway Bexleyheath DA6 7LB

John Barradell OBE Town Clerk and Chief Executive John.barradell@cityoflondon.gov.uk 020 7332 1400 Philip Everett Director of the Built Environment Philip.everett@cityoflondon.gov.uk 020 7332 1600

Jim Kehoe, Chief Planner jim.kehoe@bromley.gov.uk 0208 8313 4441

David Harley Group Manager Economic Development david.harley@lbbd.gov.uk 020 8227 5316

London Borough of Barnet Building 4 North London Business Park (NLBP) Oakleigh Road South London N11 1NP

John Humphries, Building Control John.humphries@brent.gov.uk 020 8937 5477

Seb Salom Head of Strategic Planning and Transportation Seb.salom@bexley.gov.uk 0203 045 5779

Jeremy Grint Divisional Director of Regeneration and Economic Development jeremy.grint@lbbd.gov.uk 020 8227 2443

Daniel Pope Group Manager Development Planning daniel.pope@lbbd.gov.uk 020 8227 3929

Jeanette.collins@brent.gov.uk 020 8937 5206

Ric Patterson Head of Building Control richard.patterson@croydon.gov.uk

London Borough of Ealing Perceval House 14-16 Uxbridge Road Ealing London W5 2HL

Andy Bates Team Manager South Andy.bates@brent.gov.uk 020 8937 5228 Tim Rolt Enforcement Manager Tim.rolt@brent.gov.uk 020 8937 5206

City of London Department of the Built Environment PO Box 270 Guildhall London EC2P 2EJ

Jeanette Collins Area Planning Support Manager

020 7332 1710 www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/planning

020 8825 6600 http://www.ealing.gov.uk/planning Martin Smith Chief Executive smithm@ealing.gov.uk 020 8825 7089

Issue 99102 OCTOBER-DECEMBER Issue July-September 2016 2017

65 77

Taylor Lucy Taylor Lucy Director DirectorofofRegeneration Regenerationand andPlanning Planning Policy Policy taylorl@ealing.gov.uk 0208825 88259036 9036 taylorl@ealing.gov.uk020 Noel NoelRutherford Rutherford Director BuiltEnvironment Environment DirectorofofBuilt rutherfordn@ealing.gov.uk 0208825 88256639 6639 rutherfordn@ealing.gov.uk020 Pat Hayes PatHayes Executive DirectorRegeneration Regeneration&&Housing Housing ExecutiveDirector hayesp@ealing.gov.uk hayesp@ealing.gov.uk020 0208825 88258280 8280 London LondonBorough BoroughofofEnfield Enfield

Tim.jackson@greenwich.gov.uk 0208921 8921 Tim.jackson@greenwich.gov.uk020 5463 5463

Planning ControlManager Manager PlanningControl helen.oakerbee@havering.gov.uk 01708 helen.oakerbee@havering.gov.uk01708 432800 432800

Sue Sewell SueSewell Head DemocraticServices Services HeadofofDemocratic sue.sewell@greenwich.gov.uk sue.sewell@greenwich.gov.uk0208 0208921 921 5670 5670 Andrew Parker AndrewParker Planning PlanningManager Manager(Major (MajorDevelopments) Developments) Andrew.parker@greenwich.gov.uk 0208921 8921 Andrew.parker@greenwich.gov.uk020 5875 5875

Simon Thelwell Thelwell Simon Planning PlanningControl ControlManager Manager(Projects (Projectsand and Compliance) Compliance) simon.thelwell@havering.gov.uk 01708 simon.thelwell@havering.gov.uk01708 432685 432685 London LondonBorough BoroughofofHaringey Haringey Level RiverPark ParkHouse House Level6 6River 225 HighRoad Road 225High Wood WoodGreen Green London LondonN22 N228HQ 8HQ

Martyn Thomas Thomas Martyn Development Transport TransportPlanning Planning Development&& Manager Managermartyn.thomas@havering.gov.uk martyn.thomas@havering.gov.uk 01708 01708432845 432845

020 84891400 1400 0208489 http://www.haringey.gov.uk/planning http://www.haringey.gov.uk/planning London BoroughofofHackney Hackney LondonBorough Environment andPlanning Planning Environmentand Hackney HackneyService ServiceCentre Centre 1 1Hillman HillmanStreet StreetE8E81DY 1DY 020 83568062 8062 0208356 http://www.hackney.gov.uk/planning http://www.hackney.gov.uk/planning POPOBox BoxCivic CivicCentre, Centre, Silver SilverStreet Street EN1 3XE Enfield Enfield EN1 3XE 020 83794419 4419 0208379 http://www.enfield.gov.uk/planning http://www.enfield.gov.uk/planning Rob RobLeak Leak Chief Executive ChiefExecutive Chief.executive@enfield.gov.uk Chief.executive@enfield.gov.uk020 0208379 8379 3902 3902 Woodward Joanne Joanne Woodward Head PlanningPolicy Policy HeadofofPlanning Joanne.woodward@enfield.gov.uk 0208379 8379 Joanne.woodward@enfield.gov.uk020 3881 3881 Bob Griffiths BobGriffiths Assistant Highways AssistantDirector DirectorPlanning, Planning, Highways&& Transportation Transportation Bob.griffiths@enfield.gov.uk Bob.griffiths@enfield.gov.uk020 0208379 83793676 3676 Andy AndyHigham Higham Head HeadofofDevelopment DevelopmentManagement Management Andy.higham@enfield.gov.uk Andy.higham@enfield.gov.uk020 0208379 8379 3848 3848

Tim Shields TimShields Chief ChiefExecutive Executive tim.shields@hackney.gov.uk tim.shields@hackney.gov.uk020 0208356 83563201 3201 John Allen Allen John Assistant AssistantDirector DirectorofofPlanning Planningand and Regulatory RegulatoryServices Services john.allen@hackney.gov.uk 0208356 83568134 8134 john.allen@hackney.gov.uk020 Randall RandallMacdonald Macdonald Head HeadofofSpatial SpatialPlanning Planning 020 0208356 83568051 8051

Zoe ZoeCollins Collins Head HeadofofRegeneration RegenerationDelivery Delivery&&Strategic Strategic Partnership Partnership Zoe.Collins@Hackney.gov.uk Zoe.Collins@Hackney.gov.uk

John JohnComber Comber Chief ChiefExecutive Executive John.comber@greenwich.gov.uk John.comber@greenwich.gov.uk020 0208921 8921 6426 6426

London LondonBorough BoroughofofHammersmith Hammersmith&& Fulham Fulham Hammersmith Town Hammersmith TownHall Hall Extension ExtensionKing KingStreet Street London W6 London W69JU 9JU 020 0208748 87483020 3020 http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/planning http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/planning

Pat PatCox Cox Head HeadofofPolicy Policy&&Spatial SpatialPlanning Planning Pat.cox@lbhf.gov.uk Pat.cox@lbhf.gov.uk020 0208753 87535773 5773 John JohnFinlayson Finlayson Head HeadofofPlanning PlanningRegeneration Regeneration John.finlayson@lbhf.gov.uk John.finlayson@lbhf.gov.uk020 0208753 87536743 6743 Ellen Whitchurch Ellen Whitchurch Head HeadofofDevelopment DevelopmentManagement Management ellen.whitchurch@lbhf.gov.uk ellen.whitchurch@lbhf.gov.uk020 0208753 8753 3484 3484

Mike MikeHows Hows Assistant AssistantDirector DirectorofofPlanning Planning mike.hows@greenwich.gov.uk mike.hows@greenwich.gov.uk020 0208921 8921 5363 5363

Matin MatinMiah Miah Head HeadofofRegeneration Regeneration&&Development Development matin.miah@lbhf.gov.uk matin.miah@lbhf.gov.uk0208 0208753 7533482 3482

66 78 Planning Planning in London

Dan DanHawthorn Hawthorn Assistant AssistantDirector DirectorforforRegeneration Regeneration Dan.hawthorn@haringey.gov.uk Dan.hawthorn@haringey.gov.uk020 0208489 8489 5678 5678

London BoroughofofHillingdon Hillingdon LondonBorough Civic CivicCentre, Centre, Street High High Street Uxbridge UB81UW 1UW UxbridgeUB8 01895 01895250111 250111 www.hillingdon.gov.uk/planning www.hillingdon.gov.uk/planning Jean JeanPalmer PalmerOBE OBE Deputy DeputyChief ChiefExecutive Executiveand andCorporate Corporate Director Residents Director ResidentsServices Services jean.palmer@hillingdon.gov.uk jean.palmer@hillingdon.gov.uk0189 0189 5250622 5250622 Nigel NigelDicker Dicker Deputy DeputyDirector DirectorofofResidents ResidentsServices Services Ndicker@hillingdon.gov.uk 01895250566 250566 Ndicker@hillingdon.gov.uk01895

London LondonBorough BoroughofofHarrow Harrow POPOBox Box3737 Civic CivicCentre, Centre, Station StationRoad Road Harrow HarrowHA1 HA12UY 2UY

Michael MichaelLockwood Lockwood Chief ChiefExecutive Executive leaders.appointments@harrow.gov.uk leaders.appointments@harrow.gov.uk020 020 8863 88635611 5611 Caroline CarolineBruce Bruce Corporate CorporateDirector-Environment Director-Environment&& Enterprise Enterprise caroline.bruce@harrow.gov.uk caroline.bruce@harrow.gov.uk020 0208416 8416 8628 8628 Paul PaulNichols Nichols Divisional DivisionalDirector DirectorofofPlanning Planning paul.nichols@harrow.gov.uk paul.nichols@harrow.gov.uk020 0208736 87366149 6149

Juliemma JuliemmaMcLoughlin McLoughlin Director DirectorforforPlanning Planning juliemma.mcloughlin@lbhf.gov.uk juliemma.mcloughlin@lbhf.gov.uk020 0208753 8753 3565 3565

Pippa PippaHack Hack (Acting) (Acting)Director DirectorofofRegeneration, Regeneration, Enterprise Enterpriseand andSkills Skills Pippa.hack@greenwich.gov.uk Pippa.hack@greenwich.gov.uk020 0208921 8921 5519 5519

Tim TimJackson Jackson Assistant Transportation AssistantDirector Directorofof Transportation

Stephen Kelly StephenKelly Assistant AssistantDirector DirectorforforPlanning Planning stephen.kelly@haringey.gov.uk stephen.kelly@haringey.gov.uk

020 0208863 88635611 5611 www.harrow.gov.uk/planning www.harrow.gov.uk/planning

Nigel NigelPallace Pallace Chief ChiefExecutive Executive nigel.pallace@lbhf.gov.uk nigel.pallace@lbhf.gov.uk020 0208753 87533000 3000 Royal RoyalBorough BoroughofofGreenwich GreenwichCouncil Council The Woolwich The WoolwichCentre Centre 3535 Wellington WellingtonStreet Street London LondonSE18 SE186HQ 6HQ 0208 0208921 9216426 6426 http://www.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/planning http://www.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/planning

Lyn LynGarner Garner Director Planning Regeneration, Planningand and DirectorofofRegeneration, Development Development 020 8489 lyn.garner@haringey.gov.uk lyn.garner@haringey.gov.uk 020 84894523 4523

Femi Nwanze FemiNwanze Head HeadofofDevelopment DevelopmentManagement Management femi.nwanze@hackney.gov.uk femi.nwanze@hackney.gov.uk020 0208356 8356 8061 8061

Sharon SharonDavidson Davidson Planning PlanningDecisions DecisionsManager Manager Sharon.davidson@enfield.gov.uk Sharon.davidson@enfield.gov.uk020 0208379 8379 3841 3841 David DavidB Taylor B Taylor Transportation TransportationPlanning Planning David.b.taylor@enfield.gov.uk David.b.taylor@enfield.gov.uk020 0208379 8379 3576 3576

Nick Walkley Walkley Nick Chief ChiefExecutive Executive nick.walkley@haringey.gov.uk 0208489 8489 nick.walkley@haringey.gov.uk020 2648 2648

London LondonBorough BoroughofofHavering Havering Town TownHall, Hall, Main MainRoad Road Romford RomfordRM1 RM13BD 3BD 01708 01708433100 433100 https://www.havering.gov.uk/planning https://www.havering.gov.uk/planning Cheryl CherylCoppell Coppell Chief ChiefExecutive Executive cheryl.coppell@havering.gov.uk cheryl.coppell@havering.gov.uk01708 01708 432062 432062 Andrew AndrewBlake-Herbert Blake-Herbert Group GroupDirector DirectorforforCommunity Communityand and Resources Resources(Deputy (DeputyChief ChiefExecutive) Executive) Andrew.blakeherbert@havering.gov.uk Andrew.blakeherbert@havering.gov.uk Helen HelenOakerbee Oakerbee

James JamesRodger Rodger Head HeadofofPlanning Planningand andEnforcement Enforcement james.rodger@hillingdon.gov.uk james.rodger@hillingdon.gov.uk01895 01895 250230 250230 Jales Tippell Jales Tippell Deputy Highways DeputyDirector DirectorPolicy, Policy, Highwaysand and Community CommunityEngagement Engagement jales.tippell@hillingdon.gov.uk 01895 jales.tippell@hillingdon.gov.uk 01895 250230 250230

London LondonBorough BoroughofofHounslow Hounslow Civic CivicCentre Centre Lampton LamptonRoad Road Hounslow TW3 Hounslow TW34DN 4DN 020 0208583 85835555 5555 http://www.hounslow.gov.uk/planning http://www.hounslow.gov.uk/planning Mary MaryHarpley Harpley Chief ChiefExecutive Executive mary.harpley@hounslow.gov.uk mary.harpley@hounslow.gov.uk020 0208583 8583 2012 2012 Brendon Walsh Brendon DirectorWalsh of Regeneration, Economic Director of Regeneration, Economic Development and Environment Development and Environment brendon.walsh@hounslow.gov.uk 020 8583 brendon.walsh@hounslow.gov.uk 020 8583 5331 5331 Marilyn Smith Marilyn Smith Head of Development Management Head of Development Management Marilyn.smith@hounslow.gov.uk Marilyn.smith@hounslow.gov.uk 020 8583 020 8583 4994 4994 Ian Rae IanHead Rae of Regeneration & Spatial Planning Head of Regeneration & Spatial Planning ian.rae@hounslow.gov.uk ian.rae@hounslow.gov.uk 020 8583 2561 020 8583 2561

PLANNING ANDENVIRONMENT ENVIRONMENTREFERENCE REFERENCEGUIDE GUIDE PLANNINGAND

Translation Error.

Roy RoyThompson Thompson Director Place DirectorofofPlace roy.thompson@rbk.kingston.gov.uk roy.thompson@rbk.kingston.gov.uk

Simon.williams@merton.gov.uk Simon.williams@merton.gov.uk020 0208545 8545 3680 3680

London LondonBorough BoroughofofIslington Islington 222 222Upper UpperStreet Street London N1 1XR London N1 1XR 020 0207527 75276743 6743http://www.islington. http://www.islington. gov.uk/ services/planning gov.uk/services/planning Lesley LesleySeary, Seary,Chief ChiefExecutive Executive lesley.seary@islington.gov.uk lesley.seary@islington.gov.uk020 0207527 7527 3136 3136 Karen Sullivan KarenSullivan Service DirectorofofPlanning Planning&& ServiceDirector Development Development Karen.sullivan@islington.gov.uk 0207527 7527 Karen.sullivan@islington.gov.uk020 2949 2949 Eshwyn Prabhu EshwynPrabhu Team TeamLeader Leaderfor forPlanning Planning&&Projects Projects eshwyn.prabhu@islington.gov.uk eshwyn.prabhu@islington.gov.uk020 0207527 7527 2450 2450 Victoria Geoghegan VictoriaGeoghegan Head DevelopmentManagement Management&& HeadofofDevelopment Building Control BuildingControl Victoria.Geoghegan@islington.gov.uk Victoria.Geoghegan@islington.gov.uk Andrew AndrewMarx Marx Deputy DeputyHead HeadofofDevelopment DevelopmentManagement Management &&Building BuildingControl, Control,Andrew.marx@ Andrew.marx@ islington.gov.uk 0207527 75272045 2045 islington.gov.uk020

London LondonBorough BoroughofofLambeth Lambeth Phoenix House PhoenixHouse 1010Wandsworth Road Wandsworth Road London SW82LL 2LL LondonSW8 020 79261180 1180 0207926 http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/planning http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/planning Sean Harriss SeanHarriss Chief Executive ChiefExecutive sharriss@lambeth.gov.uk 0207926 79269677 9677 sharriss@lambeth.gov.uk020 Alison AlisonYoung Young Divisional Directorfor forPlanning, Planning, DivisionalDirector Regeneration Regenerationand andEnterprise Enterprise Neil Vokes NeilVokes Project ManagerininPlanning, Planning,Regeneration Regeneration ProjectManager Enterprise and and Enterprise NVokes@lambeth.gov.uk NVokes@lambeth.gov.uk Rachel RachelSharpe Sharpe Divisional DirectorHousing HousingStrategy Strategyand and DivisionalDirector Partnership Partnership rshape@lambeth.gov.uk rshape@lambeth.gov.uk

Sakiba Gurda SakibaGurda Planning PolicyTeam TeamLeader Leader PlanningPolicy sakiba.gurda@islington.gov.uk sakiba.gurda@islington.gov.uk 020 7527 2731 020 7527 2731

Royal RoyalBorough BoroughofofKensington Kensingtonand andChelsea Chelsea The TheTown TownHall, Hall, Hornton Street Hornton Street London LondonW8 W87NX 7NX 020 0207361 73613000 3000 www.rbkc.gov.uk/planning www.rbkc.gov.uk/planning Chief ChiefExecutive Executive Nicholas NicholasHolgate Holgate chief.executive@rbkc.gov.uk chief.executive@rbkc.gov.uk020 0207361 73612299 2299 Graham GrahamStallwood Stallwood Executive ExecutiveDirector DirectorofofPlanning Planningand andBorough Borough Development Development Graham.Stallwood@rbkc.gov.uk Graham.Stallwood@rbkc.gov.uk020 0207361 7361 2612 2612 Rob RobKrzyszowski Krzyszowski Planning PlanningPolicy PolicyTeam TeamLeader Leader Rob.Krzyszowski@rbkc.gov.uk Rob.Krzyszowski@rbkc.gov.uk

Royal RoyalBorough BoroughofofKingston Kingstonupon uponThames Thames Guildhall Guildhall2,2, High Street High Street Kingston Kingstonupon uponThames ThamesKT1 KT11EU 1EU 020 0208547 85475002 5002 www.kingston.gov.uk/planning www.kingston.gov.uk/planning Bruce BruceMcDonald McDonald Chief ChiefExecutive Executive bruce.mcdonald@kingston.gov.uk bruce.mcdonald@kingston.gov.uk020 0208547 8547 5150 5150 Darren DarrenRichards Richards Head HeadofofPlanning Planningand andTransport Transport darren.richards@rbk.kingston.gov.uk darren.richards@rbk.kingston.gov.uk020 020 8547 85475933 5933

London BoroughofofLewisham Lewisham LondonBorough Town Hall, TownHall, Catford Catford London LondonSE6 SE64RU 4RU 020 0208314 83146000 6000 http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/planning http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/planning Barry BarryQuirk QuirkCBE, CBE,Chief ChiefExecutive Executive barry.quirk@lewisham.gov.uk barry.quirk@lewisham.gov.uk020 0208314 8314 6447 6447 Gavin GavinCooper, Cooper,Development DevelopmentManager Manager gavin.cooper@lewisham.gov.uk gavin.cooper@lewisham.gov.uk 020 0208314 83149271 9271 John JohnMiller, Miller,Head HeadofofPlanning Planning john.miller@lewisham.gov.uk john.miller@lewisham.gov.uk020 0208314 8314 8706 8706 Chris ChrisBrodie, Brodie,Growth GrowthArea AreaManager Manager chris.brodie@lewisham.gov.uk chris.brodie@lewisham.gov.uk020 0208314 8314 9162 9162

London LondonBorough BoroughofofMerton Merton Merton MertonCivic CivicCentre Centre London Road, London Road, Morden Morden Surrey SurreySM4 SM45DX 5DX 020 0208545 85453837 3837 http://www.merton.gov.uk/planning http://www.merton.gov.uk/planning Ged GedCurran Curran Chief ChiefExecutive Executive chief.executive@merton.gov.uk chief.executive@merton.gov.uk020 0208545 8545 3332 3332

Andrew Darvill AndrewDarvill Assistant DirectorofofTraffic Trafficand andTransport Transport AssistantDirector a.darvill@richmond.gov.uk a.darvill@richmond.gov.uk020 0208891 88917070 7070 Jon Freer JonFreer Assistant AssistantDirector, Director,Development Developmentand andStreet Street Scene Scene j.freer@richmond.gov.uk 0208891 88917319 7319 j.freer@richmond.gov.uk020

London BoroughofofNewham Newham LondonBorough Newham Dockside NewhamDockside 1000 DocksideRoad Road 1000Dockside London E162QU 2QU LondonE16

Philip PhilipWealthy Wealthy Head Policyand andDesign Design HeadofofPolicy p.wealthy@richmond.gov.uk p.wealthy@richmond.gov.uk020 0208891 88917320 7320

020 0208430 84302000 2000 www.newham.gov.uk/planning www.newham.gov.uk/planning Kim Bromley-Derry KimBromley-Derry Chief Executive ChiefExecutive Kim.bromley-derry@newham.gov.uk Kim.bromley-derry@newham.gov.uk Jackie Belton Jackie Belton Executive Directorfor forStrategic Strategic ExecutiveDirector Commissioning Commissioning Jackie.belton@newham.gov.uk Jackie.belton@newham.gov.uk

Robert Angus RobertAngus Development DevelopmentControl ControlManager Manager r.angus@richmond.gov.uk r.angus@richmond.gov.uk020 0208891 88917271 7271

VACANT VACANT Director Directorfor forCommissioning Commissioning(Planning (Planning&& Regeneration) Regeneration)

London BoroughofofSouthwark Southwark LondonBorough 160 160Tooley TooleyStreet Street SE1 2QH London London SE1 2QH 020 0207525 75253559 3559 www.southwark.gov.uk/planning www.southwark.gov.uk/planning

Deirdra Armsby DeirdraArmsby Head HeadofofPlanning Planningand andPhysical PhysicalRegeneration Regeneration deirdra.armsby@newham.gov.uk deirdra.armsby@newham.gov.uk Borough of Redbridge London London Borough of Redbridge 128-142 128-142High HighRoad Road Ilford, LondonIG1 IG11DD 1DD Ilford,London 020 85545000 5000 0208554 http://www.redbridge.gov.uk/Planning http://www.redbridge.gov.uk/Planning

Translation Error

d.barnes@richmond.gov.uk 0208891 88917477 7477 d.barnes@richmond.gov.uk020

Eleanor Kelly EleanorKelly Chief ChiefExecutive Executive eleanor.kelly@southwark.gov.uk 0207525 7525 eleanor.kelly@southwark.gov.uk020 7171 7171 Deborah Collins DeborahCollins Strategic DirectorofofEnvironment Environment&&leisure leisure StrategicDirector deborah.collins@southwark.gov.uk 020 deborah.collins@southwark.gov.uk020 7525 75250899 0899

Roger RogerHampson, Hampson,Chief ChiefExecutive Executive roger.hampson@redbridge.gov.uk roger.hampson@redbridge.gov.uk020 0208708 8708 2100 2100 Fiona FionaDunning Dunning Head HeadofofDevelopment DevelopmentManagement Management 020 0208708 87082052 2052 Fiona.dunning@redbridge.gov.uk Fiona.dunning@redbridge.gov.uk020 0208708 8708 2052 2052 Mark MarkLucas Lucas Head HeadofofInward InwardInvestment Investment&&Enterprise Enterprise 020 0208708 87082143 2143 mark.lucas@redbridge.gov.uk mark.lucas@redbridge.gov.uk John JohnPearce Pearce Head HeadofofPlanning PlanningPolicy Policyand andEnvironment Environment 020 8708 020 87082843 2843 john.pearce@redbridge.gov.uk 020 john.pearce@redbridge.gov.uk 020708 708 2843 2843 Amrik AmrikNotta Notta Head HeadofofBuilding BuildingControl Control 020 0208708 87082521 2521 amrik.notta@redbridge.gov.uk amrik.notta@redbridge.gov.uk020 0208708 8708 2521 2521

London LondonBorough BoroughofofRichmond RichmondUpon UponThames Thames Civic CivicCentre Centre 4444York Street York Street Twickenham TwickenhamTW1 TW13BZ 3BZ 020 0208891 88911411 1411 www.richmond.gov.uk/planning www.richmond.gov.uk/planning

London LondonBorough BoroughofofSutton Sutton 2424Denmark DenmarkRoad, Road, Carshalton, Carshalton, Surrey SurreySM5 SM52JG 2JG 020 0208770 87705000 5000 www.sutton.gov.uk/planning www.sutton.gov.uk/planning Niall NiallBolger Bolger Chief ChiefExecutive Executive niall.bolger@sutton.gov.uk niall.bolger@sutton.gov.uk020 0208770 87705203 5203 Ade AdeAdebayo Adebayo Executive ExecutiveHead HeadAsset AssetManagement Management&& Planning Planning&&Capital CapitalDelivery Delivery ade.adebayo@sutton.gov.uk ade.adebayo@sutton.gov.uk020 0208770 87706349 6349 Eleanor EleanorPurser Purser Executive ExecutiveHead HeadofofEconomic EconomicDevelopment Development Planning and Planning andSustainability Sustainability eleanor.purser@sutton.gov.uk eleanor.purser@sutton.gov.uk Simon SimonLatham Latham Executive ExecutiveHead HeadHousing Housingand andRegeneration Regeneration simon.latham@sutton.gov.uk simon.latham@sutton.gov.uk020 0208770 8770 6173 6173 Mary MaryMorrissey Morrissey Strategic StrategicDirector DirectorEnvironment, Environment,Housing Housing and andRegeneration Regeneration mary.morrissey@sutton.gov.uk mary.morrissey@sutton.gov.uk

Gillian GillianNorton Norton Chief ChiefExecutive Executive g.norton@richmond.gov.uk g.norton@richmond.gov.uk020 0208891 88917908 7908

Chris ChrisLee Lee Director DirectorofofEnvironment Environment&&Regeneration Regeneration chris.lee@merton.gov.uk chris.lee@merton.gov.uk020 0208274 82744901 4901

Paul PaulChadwick Chadwick Director DirectorofofEnvironment Environment p.chadwick@richmond.gov.uk p.chadwick@richmond.gov.uk020 0208891 8891 7870 7870

London LondonBorough BoroughofofTower TowerHamlets Hamlets Mulberry MulberryPlace Place 5 5Clove CloveCrescent Crescent London LondonE14 E142BE 2BE

Simon SimonWilliams Williams Director DirectorofofCommunity Communityand andHousing Housing

David DavidBarnes Barnes Head HeadofofDevelopment Developmentand andEnforcement Enforcement

020 0207364 73645009 5009 http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/planning http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/planning

Issue 102 July-September 2017 Issue 99 OCTOBER-DECEMBER 2016 79 67

Please notify any changes immediately by e-mail to jonathan.manns@colliers.com cc to planninginlondon@mac.com with the subject ‘planning in london directory’.

AmanDalvi DalviOBE OBE Aman CorporateDirector Directorfor forDevelopment Development&& Corporate Renewal Renewal Aman.dalvi@towerhamleys.gov.uk Aman.dalvi@towerhamleys.gov.uk Whalley OwenWhalley Owen HeadPlanning Planningand andBuilding BuildingControl Control ServiceHead Service owen.whalley@towerhamlets.gov.uk owen.whalley@towerhamlets.gov.uk 020 7364 5314 020 7364 5314 Buckenham PaulBuckenham Paul Manager DevelopmentManager Development 73642502 2502 0207364 020 AdeleMaher Maher Adele PlanningManager Manager StrategicPlanning Strategic 7364 5375 020 020 7364 5375 Odunoye JackieOdunoye Jackie ofStrategy, Strategy,Regeneration Regeneration&& Headof Head Sustainability,Development Developmentand andRenewal Renewal Sustainability, jackie.odunoye@towerhamlets.gov.uk jackie.odunoye@towerhamlets.gov.uk

Road ForestRoad Forest LondonE17 E174JF 4JF London 84963000 3000 0208496 020 http://www.walthamforest.gov.uk/planning http://www.walthamforest.gov.uk/planning Esom MartinEsom Martin Executive ChiefExecutive Chief martin.esom@walthamforest.gov.uk 020 martin.esom@walthamforest.gov.uk 020 4201 84964201 8496 Shomali LucyShomali Lucy ofRegeneration Regeneration&&Growth Growth Directorof Director lucy.shomali@walthamforest.gov.uk020 020 lucy.shomali@walthamforest.gov.uk 6734 84966734 8496 Jones KenJones Ken Directorof ofHousing Housing&&Growth Growth Director 0208496 8496 Ken.jones@walthamforest.gov.uk020 Ken.jones@walthamforest.gov.uk 5309 5309 Presswell,Design Design&&Conservation Conservation RonPresswell, Ron 020 Ron.presswell@walthamforest.gov.uk020 Ron.presswell@walthamforest.gov.uk 8496 6736 8496 6736

LondonBorough Boroughof ofWaltham WalthamForest Forest London Hall, TownHall, Town

OTHER OTHER ORGANISATIONS ORGANISATIONS GreaterLondon LondonAuthority Authority Greater CityHall, Hall, City TheQueen's Queen'sWalk Walk The LondonSE1 SE12AA 2AA London 0207983 79834000 4000 020 https://www.london.gov.uk/ https://www.london.gov.uk/ BorisJohnson Johnson Boris Mayorof ofLondon London Mayor mayor@london.gov.uk0207 0207983 983 mayor@london.gov.uk 4000 4000 ColinWilson Wilson Colin SeniorManager, Manager,Development Development&& Senior Projects Projects

colin.wilson@london.gov.uk020 0207983 7983 colin.wilson@london.gov.uk 4783 4783

Martin PaulMartin Paul ChiefExecutive Executive Chief pmartin@wandsworth.gov.uk pmartin@wandsworth.gov.uk

CityHall Hall WestminsterCity Westminster 64Victoria VictoriaStreet, Street,London LondonSW1E SW1E6QP 6QP 64 0207641 76416500 6500 020 https://www.westminster.gov.uk/planning https://www.westminster.gov.uk/planning

Calder NickCalder Nick Headof ofDevelopment DevelopmentPermissions Permissions Head 0208871 88718417 8417 ncalder@wandsworth.gov.uk ncalder@wandsworth.gov.uk 020

CharlieParker, Parker,Chief ChiefExecutive Executive Charlie 0207641 76412358 2358 cparker@westminster.gov.uk020 cparker@westminster.gov.uk

NigelGranger Granger Nigel ManagementEast EastArea Area DevelopmentManagement Development Manager Manager ngranger@wandsworth.gov.uk020 0208871 8871 ngranger@wandsworth.gov.uk 8415 8415

JohnWalker Walker John DirectorPlanning PlanningDelivery DeliveryUnit Unit OperationalDirector Operational 0207641 7641 jwalker2@westminster.gov.uk020 jwalker2@westminster.gov.uk 2519 2519 Smith BarrySmith Barry DirectorCity CityPlanning Planning OperationalDirector Operational 0207641 76412923 2923 bsmith@westminster.gov.uk bsmith@westminster.gov.uk 020

Hunter MarkHunter Mark ManagementNine NineElms Elms DevelopmentManagement Development AreaManager Manager OpportunityArea Opportunity mhunter@wandsworth.gov.uk020 0208871 8871 mhunter@wandsworth.gov.uk 8418 8418

BenDenton Denton Ben Directorfor forGrowth, Growth,Planning Planningand and ExecutiveDirector Executive Housingbdenton@westminster.gov.uk bdenton@westminster.gov.uk020 020 Housing 3025 76413025 7641

MartinScholar Scholar Martin StrategicPlanning PlanningManager Manager(Planning (Planning Strategic Frameworks) Frameworks) martin.scholar@london.gov.uk020 020 martin.scholar@london.gov.uk 79835750 5750 7983

info@designforlondon.gov.uk info@designforlondon.gov.uk

GrahamClements Clements Graham SeniorStrategic StrategicPlanner Planner Senior Graham.clements@london.gov.uk020 020 Graham.clements@london.gov.uk 79834265 4265 7983

UrbanDesign DesignLondon London Urban Palestra Palestra 197Blackfriars BlackfriarsRoad Road 197 LondonSE1 SE18AA 8AA London 0207593 75939000 9000 020 www.urbandesignlondon.com www.urbandesignlondon.com

enquiries.br@communities.gsi.gov.uk enquiries.br@communities.gsi.gov.uk planning.policies@communities.gsi.g planning.policies@communities.gsi.g ov.uk ov.uk

ChristineMcGoldrick McGoldrick Christine StrategicPlanning PlanningManager Manager Strategic (DevelopmentPlans) Plans) (Development christine.mcgoldrick@london.gov.uk christine.mcgoldrick@london.gov.uk 0207983 79834309 4309 020

Designfor forLondon London Design CityHall, Hall, City TheQueen's Queen'sWalk Walk The MoreLondon, London, More LondonSE1 SE12AA 2AA London

JustinCarr Carr Justin StrategicPlanning PlanningManager Manager Strategic (DevelopmentDecisions) Decisions) (Development justin.carr@london.gov.uk020 0207983 7983 justin.carr@london.gov.uk 4895 4895

Departmentfor forCommunities Communitiesand and Department LocalGovernment Government Local 0207944 79444400 4400 020

sponsored by by sponsored

Please complete complete and and mail mail or or fax fax the the form form below below or or Please click SUBSCRIBE SUBSCRIBE at at www.planninginlondon.com www.planninginlondon.com and and pay pay with with PayPal PayPal or or credit credit card card click

Magazine of of the theYear Year (non-weekly) (non-weekly) International International Building Building Magazine PressAwards AwardsWINNER WINNER 2007 2007 & & finalist finalist 2006 2006 –– 2012 2012 & 2016 Press DCLG, Transport for London, LSE Library, Deloitte Real Estate, London Councils, 33 Addleshaw Goddard, pglaw, Howard Kennedy, L B Ealing, Brockton Capital, HayesCircle Davidson, Housing Trust, Random P&O Estates Ltd,DCLG, Greenwich University, SteerLSE Davies Gleave, City Real of Estate, Newzeye.com, House, Transport for London, Library, Deloitte Westminster, British Architectural CBRE, Delancy, Paul Davis & Partners, London Councils, Circle 33 Housing,Library, P&O Estates Ltd, Greenwich University, SteerBellway Davies Homes,City Jestico & Whiles, London Quadrant, Ecology Ltd,PDP Tesco Plc, Ramboll, Gleave, of Westminster, British&Architectural Library,Consultancy CBRE, Delancy, London, Bellway HarvardJestico College&Library, PLC, L BEcology Islington, L B Greenwich, SportPlc, England, Entec Homes, Whiles,London LondonWharf & Quadrant, Consultancy Ltd, Tesco Ramboll, UK, Berkeley Group, Workspace Group,PLC, LB Bexley, RBK&C,L RTPI, LB Bromley, PRP Architects, Harvard College Library, London Wharf L B Islington, B Greenwich, Sport England, Entec Durrants, British Land Company,Group, L B Islington, CBE, GL Hearn, Sturge, Holistic, White UK, Berkeley Group, Workspace LB Bexley, RBK&C, RTPI,King LB Bromley, PRP Architects, Young Green, SNR Denton, i-Document Solutions, Trowers & Hamlins, BritishYoung Land, Green, Montagu Durrants, British Land Company, L B Islington, CBE, GL Hearn, Holistic, White Evans, Hayes Davidson, Precise Media, L B Merton, Cluttons Planning,Evans, Speechly Bircham, Dentons, i-Document Solutions, TrowersNLP, & Hamlin, British Land, Montagu Precise Media,TP Bennett, The Brockton Capital,The Turley Associates, Lichfields, L B London Merton, Society, SpeechlyEbsco, Bircham, TP Bennett, London Society,Munkenbeck Ebsco, Turley,& Partners, Terence O'Rourke, Assael Architecture, PRP,Workshop, Urban Research, Munkenbeck & Partners, Terence O'Rourke, AssaelMetropolitan Architecture,Workshop, Metropolitan Urban AMEC,GLA, LCR Stations Property, Terence O'Rourke, Rolfe Judd Planning, Southbank Research, AMEC,GLA, LCR and Stations and Property, Terence O'Rourke, Rolfe Judd Planning, University,University, Lurot Brand, Slaughter May, Alliance Planning, College Library, Cluttons, Southbank Lurot Brand,and Slaughter and May, AllianceHarvard Planning, Harvard College DPP, Savills, Henley School, Business Grosvenor, Sainsbury's, Hamptons International, Barratt Library, Cluttons, DPP,Business Savills, Henley School, Grosvenor, Sainsbury's, Hamptons Homes, National Grid, Network Rail, Foster + Partners, PRP, Gorkana Group, PRP, London & International, Barratt Homes, National Grid, Network Rail, Foster + Partners, Gorkana Continental Railways, LCA, Cardiff University, IndigoUniversity, ...

Group, London & Continental Railways, LCA, Cardiff Indigo ...

Justsome someof ofthe thefirms firmsand andorganisations organisationswho whohave havetaken takentheir theirPlanning Planning ......Just inLondon Londonsubscription. subscription. ONE ONEYEAR YEARFOR FORJUST JUST£99. £99. in Tosubscribe: subscribe:click clickon onwww.planninginlondon.com www.planninginlondon.comor orplease pleasereturn returnthis this To subscriptionisisaalicence licencefor for55copies copiesemailed emailedin inPDF PDFformat. format. form.AAsubscription form.

Pleasesupply supplyup upto to55email emailaddresses addressesto toplanninginlondon@mac.com planninginlondon@mac.com Please

PlanningininLondon London Planning

88717620 7620 0208871 020 www.wandsworth.gov.uk/planning www.wandsworth.gov.uk/planning

Stone JohnStone John

Keep taking your PiL!

68 80

ofForward ForwardPlanning Planningand and Headof Head Transportation Transportation 0208871 88716628 6628 jstone@wandsworth.gov.uk020 jstone@wandsworth.gov.uk ofWestminster Westminster Cityof City

ofPlanning, Planning,Policy Policy&&Strategy Strategy Headof Head Headof ofBuilding Building&&Dev DevControl Control Head LondonBorough Boroughof ofWandsworth Wandsworth London TownHall, Hall,Wandsworth WandsworthHigh HighStreet Street Town LondonSW18 SW182PU 2PU London

wouldlike liketo tosubscribe subscribefrom: from: I Iwould lastissue issue 101 98, July last April2016 2017

Gototoplanninginlondon.com planninginlondon.com >> Subscribe Subscribe Go andpay payonline online with with and

thisissue issue 102 99, October this July 20172016 next issue 100 January 2017 2017 next issue 103 October (noVAT, VAT,payable payableto toPlanning PlanningininLondon) London) encloseaacheque chequefor for£99.00 £99.00(no I Ienclose

aminterested interestedininadvertising advertisingininthe theAdvice Advicedirectory directory(£300 (£300for forone oneyear) year) I Iam Pleasedebit debitmy mycard card£106 £106(£99+£6.00 (£99+£6.00for forcredit creditcard cardadministration, administration,both bothVAT VATinclusive) inclusive) Please Cardtype: type: Card

VISA VISA

MASTERCARD MASTERCARD

Cardnumber: number: Card Expirydate: date: Expiry

securityno: no: security

Signature: Signature:

Tel: Tel:

Name on card: Firm:

Upto to 55 Email Email addresses: Up addresses:

Fax:

Firm:billing address: Card Card billing address:

Delivery address different: Invoice address if if different:

Postcheque chequeto: to:Planning PlanningininLondon, London,Studio StudioPetersham, Petersham,Gorshott, Gorshott,181 181Petersham Petersham Post RoadTW10 TW107AW 7AWfor forthe theattention attentionof ofNatalie NatalieBarratt Barratt Road

24-HOUR CITIES | SIR TERRY FARRELL CBE

Making cities work as 24-hour places to live Maysa Phares of Farrells gives us the thinking behind their competition winning idea

RIGHT: Competition entry

Maysa Phares is a senior urban designer with Farrells

What if we imagined a flexible, moving market, where stalls might sell croissants in the morning and mojitos at night?

This was the initial premise of the entry Farrells submitted, just over two months ago, in response to the Built Environment Trust’s call for ideas to make cities work as 24-hour places to live.

It turned out that what we imagined would be a fun opportunity to engage in out-of-the-box thinking was much more successful than we had anticipated. In fact, when we learned that our project had been selected as the winning entry, the team’s screams of joy could be heard from one end of Hatton Street Studios to the other and, arguably, all the way to Paddington.

The decision to take part in an ideas competition was the result of a practice-wide momentum to rethink the way we design. Earlier this year, a Design Development (DD) Group was set up at Farrells as a platform to invite staff to think about ways to build on Terry’s legacy while shaping a forward-looking design culture that reflects the wealth of energy, enthusiasm, and experience we have in the practice today.

Resolutely ‘bottom-up’, the DD Group, conceived and overseen by design partner Effie Kuan, kicked off with a brainstorming session. Open to all, the event brought together staff of all levels to reflect on the identity, quality, and process of design at Farrells.

It became clear then that people at Farrells have, and always have had, an appetite for bold and big-picture thinking.

Encouraging staff to take part in open competitions emerged as one of many ideas to foster creativity in the office. It materialised into a simple deal: teams should be free to prepare competition entries outside work hours, and Farrells would provide facilities and peer reviews to guide them through the process.

The Night Time is the Right Time ideas competition seemed a fantastic place to begin the experiment. Designing for the night time is inherently captivating, and the brief meant there was scope to conceive proposals at just about any scale.

An interdisciplinary team of urban designers and architectural assistants came together, including Ellen Peirson, Giulia Robba, Ben Simpson, Oleg Sevelkov, and myself. Effie Kuan, Carlos Muriel, and James Webb took part as design advisors and provided insights throughout the project.

Markets immediately captured our interest. With one in eight British employees working the night shift, we felt that 24-hour markets could make a tremendous impact on the quality and security of night time environments in London. But the question was: how? We first considered transforming our local Church Street Market into a 24-hour destination, but logistics posed a real challenge. How could a street market seamlessly transition from daytime to night time uses? Could there be a way for >>>

Issue 102 July-September 2017

81

24-HOUR CITIES | SIR TERRY FARRELL CBE

>>> traders to load and unload merchandise without disrupting the flow of activity?

These were tricky issues, but we had a resource to draw upon.

The DD Group came up with the idea of holding open charrettes on an ad hoc basis, and this was the perfect opportunity to pilot the idea.

Charrette participants, from partners to more junior members of staff, were invited to think about what a 24-hour market might look like, what it would sell, and where it should be. A few participants came up with the idea of using canals as the network of a series of floating markets. Others suggested a travelling market, led by a giant elephant, making its way across town and stationing in whichever location was voted best by app users.

Collaboration paid off, and our team took two key ideas on board: floating markets as a strategy to bring waterways to life at night, and a smartphone application that connects traders, moorings, and customers. Despite its popularity, the giant elephant was sadly set aside.

This became myKanaal, an app-driven proposal to transform London’s waterways into a network of floating markets that operate around the clock. At the heart of the idea, the myKanaal

82

Planning in London

app is envisioned as a digital platform that directs boat traders to available mooring spots and alerts Londoners to shops and services near them.

As place-makers, we felt there could be real benefits in activating our waterways, and especially towpaths that are popular commuting routes during the day, but can be intimidating at night. Even a small cluster of boat shops could bring life to an otherwise uninviting public space.

Although it is easy to imagine these markets as trendy destinations, the main ambition of myKanaal is to bring amenities closer to Londoners who live on boats or work unconventional hours, and who would benefit from the added convenience, safety, and delight of a 24-hour floating corner store, yoga studio, or bike shop. myKanaal seduced the jury, alongside many other exciting proposals. Importantly, it highlighted the positive outcomes of enabling design professionals to take on initiatives outside project work.

A few new competitions are now underway at Farrells, with further success in the National Park City competition with our ‘Living Network Entry’ and many more successes yet to come.’ more information can be found here. n

For the exhibition info go to:

http://www.buildingcentre.co.uk/exhibitions/nig ht-time-is-the-righttime BELOW: Competition entry

ADVICE

Planning Planning and and Advice Advice

town planning consultants indigoplanning.com

Old Bank Chambers London Road Crowborough TN6 2TT

Telephone:Â 01892 610408 Mr Andy Stevens andy@asplanning.co.uk www.asplanning.co.uk

Planning Services In our predominantly Green Belt area obtaining planning consent or change of use can be a challenge. Our team of Chartered Town Planners have years of experience, dealing with everything from a garden plot to a major housing development. They work closely with our land and new homes department and our agricultural and rural service department.

Our specialist services include: Advice on general planning regulations and restrictions.

Preparing, submitting and negotiating planning

applications.

Advising on and submitting planning and enforcement appeals.

Representations at Development Plan reviews.

Advising on the planning potential for change of use of all buildings i.e. barn conversions etc.

Dealing with listed building consent.

Promoting residential and commercial development.

Advising and representing parties on development options and other related interests in land.

Advice on the development of strategic land.

Contact Planning: Call 01293 824354

Planning solved by design

Planning consultants and architects www.bwcp.co.uk

To advertise here for just ÂŁ300 p.a. please email planninginlondon@mac.com Issue 99 OCTOBER-DECEMBER 2016

Issue 102 July-September 2017

71 83