Pil104 jan18 issuu ed

----

For the ISSU Edition go to: For a print quality edition [very large file!] go to: PRINT ED We are a few days later than usual owing to pressure of holidays (late Easter!) and, more seriously, our decision to include a full report on the National Planning Forum event on ‘Fixing our broken housing market’. Sorry

To buy a bound and printed limited edition copy of this issue mailed in UK please send postal address and cheque for £35 to Planning in London to Studio Petersham, Gorshott, 181 Petersham Road TW10 7AW

OR buy a print copy or copies from ISSUU at

Issue 104 January-March 2018

PLANNING IN LONDON

PLANNING IN LONDON | Issue 104 JANUARY-MARCH 2018

MAGAZINE OF THE YEAR IBP – International Building Press FINALIST 2017 (non-weekly)

! " # $ + )*! , * % $ ( # - # % & ) . # ' !$ + ! / *! # 0 1 $ 2 & / $ 0 / # *! # / $ % & ' ( &DAREN ' OLIVER on cybersecurity, page 26 ( / * 2 ! $ 2 & / $ ) 3 4 % , 5 $ 5 & ' + 3 %!*! ,TIM &ARMITAGE ' on autonomous vehicles, page 53 ( # 5 # . 4 # / $ 6 7 89$ Issue 104 January-March 2018

RIËTTE OOSTHUIZEN on planning consultancy www.planninginlondon.com

of the year, page 64

Good G**!

GOOD GROWTH AND THE DRAFT NEW LONDON PLAN Leader – page 5, The meaning of Good Growth – Hiro Aso p14; Good Growth for London’s historic environment – David English p42; London Planning & Development Forum – Housing, housing and housing... and a new London Plan; Build to Rent – Paula Carney p16; PD rights for offices to homes – Nick Taylor; Small sites – Paul Tully and Philip Bueno de Mesquita THE ESSENTIAL GUIDE TO DEVELOPMENT IN THE CAPITAL

Please subscribe: page 76

£20.88 on Amazon

CONTENTS

page 5 LEADERS London’s new plan is better than a curate’s egg, Doing it the Swedish way 9 GRAPHIC 2017 in numbers, BECG

BRIEFING – PLANNING PERFORMANCE page 22

10 OPINIONS Viability assessment is not a loophole, it’s a noose, Simon Ricketts; 13 planning reform, Martin Goodalll; 14 The meaning of Good Growth, Hiro Aso; 16 Build to Rent, Paula Carney, 17 London Transport, Dan Lewis; 18 Grenfell, Richard Harrison; 19 Housing policy, Gavin Kieran 20 ANDY ROGERS Losing the plot on the green belt 22 BRIEFING PLANNING PERFORMANCE Commercial developments granted down 11 per cent on a year earlier 26 CYBERSECURITY Daren Oliver: Spotting a spoof 27 LETTERS

BRIEFING – POPULATION, CENTRE FOR CITIES page 28

28 BRIEFING Population, Centre for Cities 30 CLIPBOARD 33 ¡PILLO! 36 LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM Housing, housing and housing ... and a new London Plan 46 GOOD GROWTH ...for London’s historic environment, David English 50 SMALL SITES Paul Tully and Philip Bueno de Mesquita

LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM page 36 Housing, housing and housing ... and a new London Plan

www.planninginlondon.com

53 AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES Tim Armitage

Continues next page >>>

Issue 104 January-March 2018

3

CONTENTS CONTINUED

>>>

55 PD RIGHTS FOR OFFICES TO HOMES Nick Taylor 57 HOSTING THE BIG EVENT Jerome Frost 64 PLANNING CONSULTANCY OF THE YEAR Riëtte Oosthuizen 67 BOOKS ‘Uncivilised Genes’ reviewed by Jonathan Manns; ‘A place for all people’ reviewed by David Edwards; ‘A New History of Modern Architecture’ introduced by the author Colin Davies; ‘The Design Companion’ reviewed by Kevin Radford; ‘The Essential Guide To The Use Of Land And Buildings’ reviewed by Andrew Rogers

HOSTING THE BIG EVENT, Jerome Frost page 57

73 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REFERENCE GUIDE Contacts in all London boroughs 76 SUBSCRIPTION FORM 77 SIR TERRY FARRELL Daylight rules and placemaking 79 ADVICE – Consultants and services

ISSN 1366-9672 (PRINT) ISSN 2053-4124 (DIGITAL) Issue 104 January-March 2018

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

BOOKS ‘A place for all people’ reviewed by David Edwards page 68

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

London’s new plan is better than a curate’s egg More people, more jobs, more growth, more transport, more investment, more moneymaking.

London’s success will be to somewhere else’s disadvantage.

Presumably the Mayor has no qualms about this

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

Statutory plans are notorious for being a compendium of reasonable policies, half- baked ideas, platitudinous statements of the obvious, and half-truths dressed up as principle. The new London Plan, launched by Mayor Khan last month, largely avoids the pitfalls inherent in this sort of document.

It sets out a coherent approach as to how London could and probably should develop over the next few decades – not-too-modestly envisaging that the document will hold good from 2019 to 2041.

There is, however, an acknowledgement that the housing target policy of 66,000 net additional homes per year is likely to need a review before 2029; one suspects that the policy-makers already know that these targets, unless there is a radical change in delivery mechanisms, will not be met.

Nothing wrong with the targets, of course. Elsewhere, the plan looks more sure-footed. The transport strategy reads like a history of the immediate future, and is entirely credible. The clear identification of growth areas and the policies that should inform them is plainly set out, and even if there are quibbles about detail the general thrust looks sound.

Particularly impressive is the section on design. This has been pretty much adopted from the work carried out by the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, now part of the Design Council, particularly in respect of design review. There is welcome acknowledgement of the problems of protecting design quality once permissions have been given, and indications of how this could be addressed. The general policies in respect of what should be expected of design in a world city in the 21st century seem sensible, though there is a tendency to assume that minimum space standards should immediately become maxima in the interests of ‘efficient’ use of sites, when simply providing more on a site might be a better alternative.

London needs a plan and this looks like a robust one, even if some of the claims made about it are exaggerations, for example the suggestion that ‘Good Growth’ is a new idea. It is a rehash of multiple past national and local policies. For ‘good’ read ‘sustainable’. Moreover, the robustness conceals the broad context in which planning, with its multiple policies and guidance, relates to the unplanned world. For example, to what extent should planning try to second-guess what is happening in the market?

Not that long ago, the Mayor’s predecessors had a near-obsession that offices were a terrible thing, were transforming vibrant parts of London into commercial dead zones, and should be generally resisted. You would never think that now: offices are positively encouraged, and protections are put in place to stop too much housing, yes housing, interfering with office locations. These include, rather mysteriously, Soho and Covent Garden. One senses that the Mayor has been lobbied rather successfully by vested interests.

At a more general level, there is a statement in the plan that development should be about ‘fairness’, that is to say whether a particular proposal will make the capital more equitable, more accessible, healthier. But the point of the plan is to make London more prosperous in comparison to both the rest of the South-east, and to the regions generally. More people, more jobs, more growth, more transport, more investment, more money-making. In short, London’s success will be to somewhere else’s disadvantage. Presumably the Mayor has no qualms about this, but he should reflect on whether the planning tests he is setting for proposals within London can nor should be seen in the same way. This is particularly true of housing proposals. The plan seems to be based on a belief that everything can be provided in quantity once you have identified land and applied design policies. But planning is not the same as delivering, especially if you are looking forward to 2041.

A final question: given the concerns about climate change and catastrophic flood expressed in the plan, would it be too much to expect an explicit proposal for a second Thames barrier, as part of an infrastructure plan incorporating an estuary airport? n >>>

www.planninginlondon.com

Issue 104 January-March 2018

5

LEADERS

Doing it the Swedish way Imagine letting developers and architects choose what they thought best? Take a look at Linköping’s Vallastaden housing project

6

Planning in London

We are still a way off delivering the 66,000 homes a year that Mayor Khan’s new London Plan targets. And for those few who will read it, or the myriad wordy housing policy documents from London’s brow-beaten planning departments, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to look for a dynamic tactic for how boroughs might achieve ‘delivery’ – especially of the right quality.

Socially-minded Swedes have revived a successful national model in the small university hitech town of Linköping in southern Sweden that is worth looking at and adapting for London.

Sweden has a housing shortage, driven by similar forces that produced ours. It has a much smaller national population of 10 million. And perhaps it is easier to deliver homes in a town with 150,000 people – not that dissimilar to a smaller London borough.

Linköping’s university has a low-rise 70s campus on the edge of town, divided from the modest town centre by greenfield land owned by the municipality. Sweden has a strong tradition of ‘Expos’ – built exhibitions of new settlements expressing the social concerns of the day that use design to address these. The last was in Malmo 15 years ago.

So the time seemed ripe to revisit the Expo concept on an eight-hectare greenfield site, now called Vallastaden, between the university and the town. An impressive 1,000 new homes have been built in five years on this site – by no less than 40 different developers. One or two developers or housebuilders would probably have sufficed over here, with the results we know and love so much.

Vallastaden’s developers, however, who included individuals, architects as well as major contractors like Skanska, did not bid on land price which was fixed, but against 19 criteria assessed on a points basis. Bidders won points for using wood and innovative construction methods; ecological kit like solar panels or returning energy to the grid; including art; research projects to deliver better social outcomes, like flexible new apartment layouts; or being an innovative architect-led builder or developer rather than a major contractor.

The idea was to avoid developer-induced design sterility, to liberate developers and designers to collaborate, innovate and experiment, and to insert urban scale densities that would extend the town, bridging the physical disconnect between ‘town and gown’ while adding value to the municipality’s surrounding land-holdings, providing new homes for all, including students and tenants as well as homeowners, in a delightful neighbourhood.

The biggest innovation seems to offer the opposite of the British planning system. Liberty!

Encouragement for smaller developers to choose materials and colours without hindrance, to pick storey heights, working within fixed numbers of storeys – two, three, four, five or six according to a pre-set urban layout – but with complete freedom for the developer/designer to set a storey height.

Imagine letting developers and architects choose what they thought best? Unheard of. No let’s have a procurement bidding war based on price instead. Imagine tens of thousands of people coming to see the resulting Expo? Unlikely.

Linköping. Listen-up voters, it is worth sending your planning officers and housing & regen’ cabinet members on a freebie to Sweden in 2018 – before it’s too late. And if they’ve any sense, London’s housebuilders should do the same for their development directors. n

LOND LON LONDON LONDO SSOCIETY SOCIE SOCIET SO SOCI EEVENTS EV EVE EVEN EVENT SSPRING SP SPR SPRI SPRIN 22018 20 201 LO JA JANUAR 2018 JANUA JANU JAN JANUARY 20 201 2

TALK | London’s Public Street Markets Join Dr Peter Jones as he illustrates how vibrant informal street markets played an essential role in shaping modern London.!

!

WALK | Market Day in Hipster London Join Blue Badge Guide Angela Morgan for a fascinating walking tour around two of London’s most popular markets – Borough and Spitalfields.

TALK | Markets, the Heart of our Great City To introduce one of the major themes of the Society’s 2018 programme, the curator of the ‘Markets’ series, Eric Reynolds of the Urban Space Group, investigates the built form along with social and economic elements that make up the marketplace.

TOUR | Gala Bingo Hall, Tooting The former Granada cinema has stunning Grade I interiors. Ian Nairn said “you can afford to miss the Tower of London, but don’t miss this.”

FEBRUA 2018 FEBRU FEB FEBRUARY

TALK | The Survey Of London: Recording London’s Built Environment Since 1894 Peter Guillery presents an illustrated talk on the Survey’s origins and progress, highlighting recent work on Clerkenwell, Marylebone and Whitechapel.

TALK | London’s Great Estates: The Portman Estate Simon Loomes, Executive Director of the Portman Estate will discuss how the Estate’s long-term

values can continue to influence the success of London’s West End. WALK | Streets in the Sky Another Society walk, looking at the pedways of the city.

!

FILM | London Symphony Screening Join us at a candlelit Southwark Cathedral for a screening of the inspiring and beautiful black and white film London Symphony.

!

NEW | ‘How We Work’ A series of members-only events with a key principal from one of the capital's exciting architectural studios. This evening we visit Studio Egret West.

MARC 22018 MAR MA MARCH 20 201

TALK | ‘Planning for 10 Million Londoners’ Colin Wilson, head of strategic planning at the GLA and curator of our planning theme, introduces the ideas behind this year’s talks, walks and visits. How will London cope with its projected growth? What do we need to consider as we move towards being a ‘mega-city’.

DEBATE | 8 London Icons A joint event with London Historians – we look at eight architectural icons and debate whether they should be saved or demolished.

!

TOUR | Senate House A London icon and a stunning piece of 1930s architecture, this Art Deco building was designed for the University by Charles Holden.

TALK | ‘The 1930s’ Curator of the series of talks, walks and visits in our 1930s strand, Alan

Powers, former Chair of the 20th Century Society and professor of architecture and cultural history at the University of Greenwich, introduces the architecture of the period and the treasures we can expect to see during the year.

APRIL APRI 2018

TALK | London: National Park City What if we took inspiration from the successes of our National Parks and were to transform Greater London into a National Park City, a new kind of National Park that sits outside of current legislation?

WALK | London Slave Markets This thought provoking tour takes you through the streets and alleys of the City of London to explore and uncover some of the forgotten history of the capital’s involvement in the Transatlantic Slave Trade.

!

DEBATE | What should follow Crossrail 2?

In association with CityMetric.

London’s transport infrastructure needs continue to grow. What should we be planning for? !

NEW | ‘How We Work’ A members-only event with a key principal from one of the capital's exciting architectural practices discussing their history and the current projects. This evening, Allies + Morrison’s Southwark studio.

!!!

CORPORATE SUPPORTERS

FOR UP TO DATE INFORMATION AND TO BOOK, VISIT LONDONSOCIETY.ORG.UK/EVENTS

ave 10%

sing code

341PIL

-

Waterfront’s 6th Annual

1DWLRQDOO\ 6LJQLðFDQW

Infrastructure Projects Forum

2018

Weds 7th February - Thurs 8th February 2018 | etc.venues - St Paul’s, London A practical guide to gaining a DCO and NSIP delivery: successfully completing pre-application, examination and DCO implementation Featuring speakers from Simone Wilding, Head of National Infrastructure Case Management, The Planning Inspectorate Christopher Nunn, Consents and Communications Manager, National Grid Anna Pickering, Regional Investment Programme/ Statutory Processes, Highways England Jon Banard, Project Manager, :\ɈVSR *V\U[` *V\UJPS Angus Walker, Partner; Chair, Bircham Dyson Bell, National Infrastructure Planning Association

T: 0207 067 1597 E: conference@thewaterfront.co.uk W: www.thewaterfront.co.uk

2017 IN NUMBERS | BECG

2017 in numbers

www.planninginlondon.com

Issue 104 January-March 2018

9

OPINION:VIABILITY ASSESSMENTS | SIMON RICKETTS

Viability assessment is not a loophole, it’s a noose If the 2017 answer is to rely on land owners and developers to pay for affordable housing let that be the outcome of a proper political debate and written into policy argues Simon Ricketts Congratulations to Shelter’s PR team. Its report, Slipping through the loophole: How viability assessments are reducing affordable housing supply in England, with a deliberately emotive reference in its accompanying 1 November 2017 press release to a ‘legal loophole exploited by developers‘ was lapped up largely uncritically by the media: Loophole that allows developers to avoid building affordable homes leads to huge shortfall Telegraph, 31 October 2017 Majority of affordable homes lost due to legal loophole exploited by developers, show figures Independent, 1 November 2017 Revealed: The ‘Loophole’ Developers Use To Avoid Building More Affordable Homes Huffington Post, 31 October 2017 SHAMEFUL GREED Developers are using a legal loophole to build less affordable homes than required in order to protect their profit margins The Sun, 1 November 2017:

10 Planning in London

Some basic truths are being conveniently forgotten. I set out some of them in my 28 May 2017 blog post, Affordable Housing Tax and won’t repeat them here, save to say that we need to pause and reflect whether public policy on affordable housing provision is in a good place at all at present. The aim of the Shelter report is to seek to persuade the Government to follow through with its proposed limiting of the role of viability assessment at application, as opposed to plan-making, stage. This proposal is being consulted upon in Planning for the right homes in the right places consultation paper, responses to which are due by 9 November 2017.

But the report is unbalanced. The description of the assessment process is over-simplistic. It asserts blandly that developers “can cite viability concerns to lower the amount of affordable housing they are required to provide, in order to guarantee them a 20 per cent profit margin and inflate their bids for land”, playing down the scrutiny given by the authority’s valuers (or district valuer if the authori-

Simon Ricketts is a partner of boutique planning law firm Town Legal LLP. His Simonicity blog is written in his personal capacity

ty so chooses) and by the Planning Inspectorate on appeal (see for example my 24 June 2017 blog post that referred to the Parkhurst Road and Newcombe House decisions). The report repeatedly refers to 20 per cent profit on a scheme as if it is a standard benchmark dreamed up by developers, when in reality a scheme by scheme approach is required. Often that figure has indeed been accepted, but on the basis that it is determined to be appropriate as a tipping point. Given the risks >>> inherent in any major scheme (the paper wrongly states that “the developer’s profit is effectively guaranteed by the viability loophole” – not guaranteed, not a loophole) how much profit would a provider of capital require in order to invest in that project rather than in any other commercial development or investment? 20 per cent sounds about right to me? The report ends up laying most of the blame at paragraph 173 of the NPPF: “...To ensure viability, the costs of any requirements likely to be applied to development, such as requirements for affordable housing, standards, infrastructure contributions or other requirements should, when taking account of the normal cost of development and mitigation, provide competitive returns to a willing land owner and willing developer to enable the development to be deliverable.”

It seeks to show the effect that this supposed change in approach has had on the delivery of affordable homes by way of section 106 agreement: (see CHART on next page) It is interesting to look at this table alongside other tables in the research work from which it is drawn, Rethinking planning obligations: balancing housing numbers and affordability (Dr Sue Brownill and Dr Youngha Cho, School of the Built Environment Oxford Brookes University, March 2017): (see TABLES on next page)

In my view NPPF has been far less influential than other changes such as the loss of Government funding.

By political sleight of hand, moral and legal responsibility for funding the provision of affordable, ie subsidised, housing has over the last decade moved largely onto the owners of land being brought forward for residential development and the promoters of those schemes. What level of affordable housing do these schemes have to bear? In reality, given such high policy targets, as much as can be extracted in negotiations, often with a review mechanism in the section 106 agreement allowing for further extraction at later stages in the development, preserving only as a potential return whatever benchmark land

11

Planning in London

value and developer’s profit percentage has been agreed upfront in the viability assessment.

As I explained in my Affordable Housing Tax blog post, section 106 requirements in relation to affordable housing largely started in the 1990s and became progressively entrenched in policy through the 2000s. But, prior to reductions in government funding, first in 2005 and then in 2011, the basis for developer commitments towards affordable housing was very different. Developers would commit in their section 106 agreement to affordable housing provision on the basis of securing a minimum base price for the units, usually being obliged to market the opportunity to nominated registered providers (known as registered social landlords until 2008). The quantum of the registered provider’s bid would depend upon the level of social housing grant secured from the Housing Corporation (replaced by the Homes and Communities Agency) and/or local authority. The nature of tenure of the affordable housing, and quantum, would depend upon the base price secured and in turn, in large part, upon the availability of social housing grant. “Cascade” provisions would specify the policy priorities in terms of tenure/quantum where the minimum base price could not be achieved.

The minimum base price would commonly be linked to the Housing Corporation’s Total Cost Indicator (TCI), ie its estimate, area by area, of the normal cost of providing different types of housing. Social housing grant was commonly as high as 40 to 60 per cent of TCI. But from around 2011 , with little fanfare and no public debate, social housing grant ceased to be available for section 106 affordable housing.

As a result of that fundamental change in approach, affordable housing requirements are now pretty much a straight tax on land value (where the developer can pass the cost to the land owner through paying less for the land) and otherwise a tax on development. Often in reality the cost cannot be passed on – land owners have existing uses for their land, other potential development options or simply a minimum aspiration below which they will not go. Equally, land may have been acquired by an irrationally exuberant >>>

OPINION:VIABILITY ASSESSMENTS | SIMON RICKETTS

>>> purchaser, unwilling now to crystallise a loss.

Viability assessment is a necessary evil, but don’t assume that developers relish it: – Via review mechanisms it can end up capping the maximum return that is achievable, an unattractive option when weighed against the uncapped risks that arise through any development project.

– The toxic nature of the public debate, placing at the developer’s door a problem not of its making.

– The increasing risk that commercially sensitive information will need to be shared publicly.

– The slow, expensive and unpredictable nature of the process, involving various consultants, all paid for by the developer – plainly, going with the policy grain will always be an easier option.

There is of course a debate to be had as to the relative extent to which land owners, developers and the state should fund affordable housing. I hope that we are indeed about to have that debate. There are some faint but encouraging signs, for instance the announcement by the prime minister in her party conference speech of £2bn towards social housing, the promised green paper and Sajid Javid’s recent urging that the Chancellor should borrow to build homes. We await the Autumn budget on 22 November with interest. In the meantime, unless local planning authorities are going to reduce massively their affordable housing requirements (unlikely, it’s needed), there is no alternative to viability appraisal. By all means, let’s make it work better but, without it, we will have even fewer homes built. Inevitably, we’ve been there before. See for example an ODPM report, July 2005: The Value for Money of Delivering Affordable Housing through Section 106: “7.1 The research confirms that s.106 plays an important role in the delivery of affordable housing. However, there are other factors besides s.106 which have a significant influence on the provision of affordable housing. Some of these factors affect the availability of land, others affect the capacity to negotiate affordable housing contributions, still others affect the financial capacity of RSLs and other stakeholders. Such factors include: ...

– Other planning obligations – the requirement for other essential planning obligations can reduce the contribution available to affordable housing.

– Rent restructuring – this can affect the ability of the RSL to raise loans.

– The grant regime – the abolition of LASHG has implications for affordable housing delivery if it is not replaced by other means. The short term nature of the bidding regime for funds can delay or postpone a scheme.”

See also written evidence submitted to the Communities and Local Government Committee by by Professor Tony Crook, Ms Sarah Monk, Dr

12

Planning in London

Steven Rowley and Professor Christine Whitehead in 2006: ” Our research suggests that most (nearly three quarters) of Section 106 affordable housing units have an injection of public subsidy in the form of Social Housing Grant.

At first sight this is odd and does not sit easily with one of our interpretations of Section 106, ie that developer contributions replace the need for subsidy. This might suggest policy “failure” but ignores the context within which Section 106 works best. Our evidence shows that planning gain delivers affordable housing in high price areas where land is expensive.

What developers’ contributions appear to have done to date is to reduce the price of this expensive land to one that RSLs can afford within Housing Corporation funding guidelines. So, despite significant developers’ contributions, mounting on average to 5 per cent of the gross development value across Section 106 sites (both the market and non-market elements), SHG is still needed to make the homes affordable and the schemes viable. In a recent calculation we have estimated that developers’ contributions on schemes agreed in 2003-04 were valued at £1,200 million.

In looking at how Section 106 provides funding, we also need to recognise that Section 106 negotiations between developers and planners are not just about affordable housing contributions, but are usually about a much wider range of contributions, both in terms of physical off-site infrastructure and wider community needs, including school buildings. Affordable housing is not necessarily the highest priority and hence there may be little by way of developers’ contributions left over once other requirements have been negotiated and agreed.

Thus both the expense of the land and the competing claims on planning gain explain the need for SHG, although without a clear negotiating and “accounting” framework there may well be

risks that SHG inadvertently cross-subsidises these other planning “gains”.”

Eleven years on and it seems to me that we are in a much worse position. Whilst some grants are of course still available, social housing grant is long gone and in many areas a large non-negotiable slice has taken out by CIL (supposedly to be spent by authorities on infrastructure that unlocks development but that is not how it has turned out at all). If the 2017 answer is to rely on land owners and developers to pay for affordable housing, let that be the outcome of a proper political debate and written into policy rather than the current unsatisfactory situation, which appears to me to be intellectually dishonest. If you’re going to tax market participants, do it openly, explain why you’re doing it and be sure that the mechanism is efficient in delivering the agreed objectives – more housing and more affordable housing, of all tenures. n This article first appeared in Simon’s blog Simonicity

OPINION: PLANNING REFORM | MARTIN GOODALLL

The need for real planning reform – Wales leads the way I have previously made the point that Welsh planning law has been steadily diverging from the English legislation for a number of years now, to the extent that it is difficult to keep up with current Welsh planning legislation while at the same time keeping abreast of the constantly changing legal landscape that influences town and country planning in England. It is solely for that reason that I have found it necessary to confine this article to planning law issues in England alone.

I do, however, wish to draw attention to an important Consultation Paper which was recently published by the Law Commission, entitled “Planning Law in Wales”. This is an impressive document, running to 493 A4 pages. I would encourage those readers who deal with planning law in Wales to study the document’s recommendations and respond to the consultation, which ends (very fittingly) on St David’s Day, Thursday 1 March 2018.

The consultation paper and summary can be downloaded here: https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/planning-law-in-wales/ and comments can be sent to planning_wales@lawcommission.gov.uk So why do I think this consultation paper is so important? The major reason is that, although this paper applies only to Wales, the issues it discusses are equally applicable to planning law in England, and the authoritative analysis of these issues in this consultation paper could well be a precedent for a similar exercise in England, which could lead (I hope) to a long overdue consolidation and codification of both our primary and secondary legislation relating to or affecting town and country planning in this country.

As the consultation document points out, an extensive system of primary and secondary legislation has grown up, much altered by successive governments of differing political persuasions in response to new political pressures and priorities.

This legislation is supplemented by a mass of policy guidance of various kinds, both national and local.

As a result of this evolutionary process, the law that governs the planning system – contained in Acts, Regulations, Orders, Rules and directions – is now exceedingly [I would say excessively] complex.

We currently have no fewer than 30 Acts of Parliament in England alone, all or part of which contain provisions relating to town and country planning, and around 150 pieces of secondary legislation that determine how the planning system

www.planninginlondon.com

operates in detail, as well as national and local policy documents.

The resulting mass of primary and secondary legislation has grown inexorably and to no particularly obvious pattern. Following the first comprehensive Town and Country Planning Act in 1947, the relevant law and Government policy could be contained, along with commentary, within a single loose-leaf volume (originally entitled the Encyclopaedia of Planning, Compulsory Purchase and Compensation). Seventy years later, the “planning” element of that work has now grown to ten volumes. [Most of us have long since given up trying to use the paper version of the Encyclopedia, and now use the online version instead. I have some fairly major reservations about the content of the Encyclopedia, but that’s another subject!]

Many of these Acts and regulations have been the subject of judicial interpretation in the courts over the last 70 years. And the whole system has

We currently have no fewer than 30 Acts of Parliament in England alone, all or part of which contain provisions relating to town and country planning, and around 150 pieces of secondary legislation that determine how the planning system operates in detail, as well as national and local policy documents. been the subject of numerous pieces of guidance, produced either by central government departments and other public bodies or by relevant professionals or others. The law is difficult enough to navigate for specialist professionals, who also have available online resources. For non-specialists, let alone members of the public, the law – albeit simple enough in principle – is now almost impenetrably complex in practice.

The body of judicial authorities is now formidable, and significant judgments badly needed to be

Martin Goodall is a Consultant Solicitor with Keystone Law Follow his blog at http://planninglawblog.blogspot.com

codified (i.e. taken on board in primary legislation). I have in mind, examples such as the concept of the planning unit, and the rule in Burdle; there are a good many others. As a law student, I recall studying the Sale of Goods Act 1893, which was the result of just such an exercise of codification. If it could be done in the 1890s, it can certainly be done in the 21st century!

As the consultation paper points out, one of the problems, even within the primary legislation, is that some provisions are in the four main 1990 Acts; others are in amendments to those Acts; others are in new provisions inserted into the Acts; yet others are in freestanding statutes outside the 1990 legislation altogether.

So, for example, the duty to make planning decisions in accordance with the development plan – which is a fundamental principle of the system – is in section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and not in the 1990 Act. Indeed, it is noteworthy that of the numerous duties laid upon planning authorities when determining planning applications, only two are in the 1990 Act itself.

I have hardly scratched the surface of the introductory chapter of this important consultation paper. I cannot attempt to summarise all 493 pages, and so I strongly commend the paper to readers of PiL. The consultation paper is unsigned, in the sense that its authorship is not stated on the face of the document.

The team has in fact been led by Dr Charles Mynors, a well-known and highly respected member of the planning bar, who is not only a very experienced planning lawyer but is also a chartered town planner. He is also the author of several authoritative and extremely helpful planning law textbooks.

This consultation paper is yet another impressive achievement.

© MARTIN GOODALL

Issue 104 January-March 2018

13

OPINION: GOOD GROWTH | HIRO ASO

The meaning of Good Growth Good Growth is about weaving the physical and non-physical qualities into a collage that builds on the richness and diversity lying dormant in the city says Hiro Aso In his draft new London Plan, Mayor Sadiq Khan sets out clear expectations for how the capital can be shaped to meet the demands of a population which is expected to top 10 million before too long.

His focus is on working to re-balance development in London towards delivering a more socially integrated and sustainable city. We at Gensler are genuinely excited about a growing city and believe that growth brings the best out of existing places while providing new opportunities to communities. But growth, or Good Growth, as Khan refers to it, is not about supporting growth at any cost. It’s about creating community cohesion and social integration. It’s about delivering places to live that match our way of life. It’s about building a more inclusive, greener and safer city that supports the health and wellbeing of all Londoners.

I recently had the honour of being selected by the Mayor as one of his 50 Design Advocates to help support his ‘Good Growth by Design’ programme. The initiative sets out an integrated programme of work that ultimately seeks to enhance the design of buildings, spaces and neighbourhoods for all Londoners by drawing together existing design and place shaping expertise, and using the skills of the advocates and the built environment sector as a whole.

So, what does Good Growth mean and how do we set about achieving it? Well, ultimately, it’s about building in inclusivity within our neighbourhoods, towns and cities—places that are home to people of mixed incomes, from diverse backgrounds, and at all stages of life.

Good Growth is also about creating and redeveloping spaces with strong cultural offerings,

BELOW: Copenhagen has created a city that its people are proud of. Photo: Nick Karvounis

14

Planning in London

Hiro Aso is head of transport and infrastructure at Gensler

supporting jobs and economic prosperity – places that promote public health by encouraging people to walk and cycle, thus improving wellbeing. And this doesn’t just apply to London, but to neighbourhoods, towns and cities all around the UK and beyond; the Northern Powerhouse, the Midlands Engine, our Great Western Cities – all our regional economies.

This kind of growth can only be successful if it’s done through a collaborative and consultative

process. Developers, local authorities and industry need to work with local communities to co-produce and co-generate ideas to get to a point where the ideas are genuinely grounded in the locality, responding to specific, local issues.'

Having worked over many different geographies for the span of my career, it is evident that the success of growth runs deeper than having progressive ideas; sound governance is fundamental. Having closer, more creative collaboration between government and the real estate industry will lead to better success. If you look at some of the best examples of placemaking around the world, the golden thread is governance.

Look at Copenhagen for instance. Its municipal government is powerful, and that enhances the city’s ability to make strategic decisions that span decades and mayoral terms. The capacity of the public sector is strengthened by an educated workforce with deep technical knowledge. And collaboration across political parties, levels of government, and sectors of society is common and consistent. By using an approach of intelligent, human-centric urban planning, Copenhagen has created a city that its people are proud of and show off.

There is no silver ‘design' bullet for Good Growth. It’s all context dependent and we should certainly be cautious about trying to simply

www.planninginlondon.com

‘recreate’ successes—even from Copenhagen— that don’t align with the community’s needs or the local environment. The ultimate challenge is creating a framework that balances the planned and the unplanned, allowing flexibility to change.

A place’s greatest attribute is choice—it’s all about capitalising on an area’s diversity in a way that fosters creativity while injecting newness through more strategic guiding principles. This creates an urban environment that is able to evolve and adapt.

As Italo Calvino writes in his novel, Invisible Cities, “The city, however, does not tell its past, but contains it like the lines of a hand, written in the corners of the streets, the gratings of the windows, the banisters of the steps, the antennae of the lightning roads, the poles of the flags, every segment marked in turn with scratches, indentations, scrolls.”

Good Growth is about weaving the physical and non-physical qualities into a collage that builds on the richness and diversity lying dormant, allowing a place’s eccentricities and networks of activities to bring about a transformation.

Ultimately, cities should be places for everyone.

Everyone that has gone before. And everyone that is yet to come. They should be reflective of both their heritage and their present, growing community. n

ABOVE: London is creating and redeveloping spaces with strong cultural offerings. Photo: Mike Stezycki

Hiro Aso specialises in the design and delivery of regenerative transport hubs. He was lead architect overseeing the redevelopment of London King's Cross Station for Network Rail and Crossrail Bond Street.

Issue 104 January-March 2018

15

OPINION: BUILD TO RENT | PAULA CARNEY

Build to Rent: planning for the future Investment in the Build to Rent sector is growing fast; it is estimated that the sector could grow to £70 billion by 2022 and it’s easy to understand why says Paula Carney From an occupier’s perspective, while it has become increasingly more difficult to purchase a home due to expensive property prices and tougher lending criteria, many people are not prepared to compromise on the areas in which they want to live or the standard of accommodation they expect. From a developer’s perspective, the Build to Rent investment model offers more stability in the long term and is less risky as it doesn’t rely on lengthy sales rates.

In October this year, Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan said that the level of housing being constructed in London should increase from 29,000 homes a year to 66,000, and that 65 per cent of these homes needed to be affordable – a percentage much higher than the current rate of 38 per cent. If the level of affordable ‘built for sale’ housing continues to remain insufficient, the amount of people renting

16

Planning in London

instead of buying is likely to increase, making the claim that the Build to Rent sector will be worth £70 billion in the next five years seem quite feasible.

But what impact could this burgeoning sector have on the planning industry?

The recently published draft London Plan that was released for consultation on 29th November 2017 contains a bespoke Build to Rent planning policy (Policy H13) which states that ‘the planning system should take a positive approach to the Build to Rent sector to enable it to better contribute to the delivery of new homes.’ The UK Government and the London Mayor are both clearly very much in favour of Build to Rent. But will the new draft London Plan’s proposals assist developers and occupiers?

According to the draft London Plan, boroughs should not set prescriptive dwelling size mix requirements for market and intermediate homes (Policy H12). This is a welcome proposal.

However, not so welcome is Policy D4 which clearly states that its minimum space standards are to be met by all tenures and all residential accommodation that is self-contained. This gives the impression that there is no acknowledgement of the fact that an occupier’s demands for market for sale housing and for Build to Rent housing are often considerably different. For example, occupiers in Build to Rent schemes are often attracted by high quality internal, communal and external amenity spaces and the safety and security of high levels of management. Therefore, developers of Built to Rent schemes continue to argue that it is not appropriate for all homes to have private amenity spaces or low numbers of units to a core, and such provision makes Build to Rent homes unnecessarily more expensive to rent. The poli-

Paula Carney is head of London planning at WYG

cy also states that ‘the Mayor will produce guidance on the implementation of this policy for all housing tenures’. Many developers will be hanging their hat on this, hoping for more flexibility. However, maybe this will come more readily if Build to Rent covenants are longer to give the Mayor assurance that the homes will not revert to market for sale housing.

Much of Policy H13 and its accompanying text is taken up with the provision of affordable housing.

Developers will be pleased that Build to Rent schemes need only provide discounted market rent (DMR) units rather than other forms of intermediate housing or the traditional affordable rented housing.

However, the sting in the tail is that at least 30 per cent should be at London Living Rent level, with the remainder being at a range of discounts below market rent to be agreed with the borough and/or the Mayor where relevant. While the policy does add that the tenure split will be reviewed and if necessary, updated in 2021 through Supplementary Planning Guidance, the industry expectation in the meantime is that the current policy will deliver less affordable housing than the Mayor might be wishing for.

Whilst the new London Plan won’t be adopted until 2019, it is likely that it will be given growing emphasis by the Mayor in advance, especially as the current London Plan is that of his predecessor, Boris Johnson. However, in the run up to the local council elections in May 2018, it is expected that local politics may be occupying many developers’ thoughts as much as those emerging from City Hall. It will be interesting to see if the London Plan’s proposals will help to facilitate an increase in the adoption of Build to Rent schemes both by developers and occupiers, or if local policies do not necessarily share the same positive feeling towards the sector. n

OPINION: LONDON TRANSPORT | DAN LEWIS

Rethinking the future of the London transport market Dan Lewis asks What is the future of the London Transport Market?

Unfortunately, the recent Mayor’s Draft Transport Strategy for London seems to envision more of the same, largely involving an increasing role for its very own Transport for London. But this is mistaken.

Transport is entering a dynamic age and we must embrace it. It started with Uber but disruptive competitive entry in autonomous vehicles, pavement drones, ubiquitous bike share schemes and eventually air passenger vehicles are coming.

Underpinning this by the mid-2020s will be huge volumes of data transmitted by fibre optic cable and 5G networks. And together they threaten to undermine TfL’s self-regulated monopoly of services and transport assets.

It wasn’t meant to be like this. The Mayor’s Government has reasons for cheer. In 2018, London will become the first European Capital city to operate public transport without public subsidy. And no city has absorbed a growing population as well as London has from 2001 – 1.6m more which takes it to 8.7m in 2016. Without a growing population Crossrail, the Overground and all the tube upgrades would never have happened.

Demographics creating pre-existing demand, not the Olympics of 2012, drove these investments.

Unfortunately, the powers that be do not seem to be adapting well to the new dawn of competitive - and particularly not public - transport.

Nowhere is this more obvious than in the sorry case of Uber. TfL sets the prices for Black Cabs and the regulations under which they operate. Equally, Cabbies have to undergo an arduous few years

www.planninginlondon.com

learning The Knowledge of London streets. These are all high barriers to entry, from a Byzantine age, keeping cab prices high and their numbers low.

Smartphones, satnavs and cheaper cars on demand from Uber changed all that. Uber lost its licence from TfL last September principally on safety grounds but the regulatory dispute could run for years in the courts. And no one expects that we can ever go back to only having Black Cabs again.

When all’s said and done, TfL’s greatest error here was not to license additional competitors to Uber at the start. Uber now has an impossible to dislodge dominant market share with its ride-hailing app.

So what about bikes?

If as the Draft Strategy aspires, cycling is to play a growing role in Londoners’ transport usage, then more space must be made for competing bike-share providers. While popular, Santander (or Boris) bikes do require a public subsidy of £10m each year and encroach on public road and pavement space as well as crowding out future competition. Unlocking hire bikes with Bluetooth-enabled phone apps, rather than docking them in valuable finite areas of public space, has to be a better way. And this is what is now offered by the likes of Ofo, Mobike, Urbo and oBike – who, unlike every other player in the London Transport Marketplace, don’t even want a subsidy.

Another muted idea of the Draft Strategy was a possible delivery surcharge to reduce congestion.

But so much more can be done to pioneer night-

Dan Lewis is senior infrastructure adviser to the Institute of Directors

time deliveries and to encourage innovation in deliveries from things like delivery droids on pavements and flying drones. Finding more ways to enable the increased volume of goods transported rather than reduce it with taxation is a preferable way for a growing city competing on the world stage.

What holds us back is that underpinning the Draft Strategy and TfL in general, is always the belief in a modal shift to public transport from the car. Yet it is mistaken to always assume that such a move is in everyone’s best interests, let alone that it’s what people want. What about consumer choice?

And we detect a bias towards central over outer London in this approach, where the car remains the best and only method for any substantial trip for many suburban dwellers.

Car parking and pickup/drop-off spaces remain of pivotal importance to those Londoners who are not able at a physical level to easily shift between different forms of public transport. Keeping these spaces open for cars is actually critical for the coming self-driving vehicle revolution.

Now we really need to see a review of the roles and responsibilities of TfL. Ideally, we should aim for a facilitated environment for disruptive entry by transport competitors in the transport network of the future.

Increasing the market share of TfL should not be accepted as always the best way forward. The growth transport areas of the future – transport software apps and algorithms, self-driving connected vehicles, delivery drones in the air and pavement promise to transform and drive down the cost of living in London.

This is the time for the Mayor to step back and let the future transport market flourish. n

Issue 104 January-March 2018

17

OPINION: GRENFELL | RICHARD HARRISON

The role of the architect The Grenfell Tower disaster has led to a comprehensive review into the construction industry in order to identify systemic weaknesses and consider fundamental improvements. This includes our Role as Architects explains Richard Harrison On 3 July 2009, a fire started by an electrical failure with a TV in Lakanal House, a 14 storey Southwark Council residential block. The building had recently been refurbished by the Council to meet current fire safety standards.

Six people died and 10 were injured. The inquiry found that the fire spread unexpectedly fast, both laterally and vertically, trapping people in their homes, with the exterior cladding panels burning through, in just four and a half minutes.

On 29th January 2016, part of the external brick cladding at Edinburgh Council’s Oxgangs Primary School, collapsed. Thankfully, this occurred before normal school opening time, and nobody was injured. Following investigation, 17 schools were closed for a period of several months.

On 14 June 2017 a fire believed to have been started by a fridge-freezer on the 4th floor of Grenfell Tower, a 24 storey Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea residential block, spread rapidly to the exterior cladding, and burnt for almost 3 days.

It caused an 71 deaths and over 70 injuries.

The building had recently been re-clad and refurbished internally by RBK&C. Government sponsored full-scale fire tests have been carried out on 7 combinations of external ACM cladding with thermal insulations, the results of which have identified approximately 200 buildings in the UK at risk. A public inquiry is in progress.

The public inquiry into the causes of the Grenfell Fire is ongoing, but the event has sent a shockwave through the construction industry.

The Construction Industry Council (CIC) representing 52 construction-related Institutions, Associations and Societies, has established a Panel to work collaboratively with its members to develop a submission to the Public Inquiry into the tragedy. The underlying purpose of the submission will be to propose what should be different about the whole process of procuring and managing buildings in which people live, to improve fire safety in future.

18

Planning in London

The work will concentrate initially on buildings where people live, (excluding single family houses), where the management of the building is significant in delivering safety.

CIC has also made separate recommendations to the Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety by Dame Judith Hackett.

The ACA and the RIBA have been contributing expertise into what has become a comprehensive review into our industry in order to identify systemic weaknesses and consider fundamental improvements. This includes our Role as Architects.

The proposed key topics with multi-disciplinary input are: 1. Skills 2. Procurement 3. Design and specification 4. Planning, regulation and building control 5. Work on site, supervision and sign-off 6. Management in use and maintenance It is not my place to comment on what is currently under discussion and the studies are ongoing and in due course it will be for the Public Inquiry to report its findings.

Nevertheless, the themes and debates ongoing in our industry since Latham, Egan, CABE and even the Farrell Review as well as the failures at Lakanal, Edinburgh Schools and Grenfell, are undoubtedly echoing in our minds, for example:• Are Client bodies themselves and their building projects adequately and appropriately resourced?

• Are we securing consultant teams with the Sail Street SE11, Lambeth appropriate experience and skills?

• Are budgets sufficient for the purpose and what is the real cost of saving expenditure in the long term?

• Are national regulations and standards in relation to fire, sufficiently clear and fit for purpose in design, specification and use of buildings?

• How can designs and specifications be secured without dilution and detriment through cost management exercises to implementation on

Richard Harrison is immediate past president of the Association of Consultant Architects

site?

• Is there sufficient cross-checking between the design team and the construction teams?

• Is there adequate representation, inspection and sign-off by the employers’ representatives during the construction stage?

• Who is ultimately responsible for the key decisions, authorising and ultimately certifying a construction project?

• Are the building management teams being presented with adequate and appropriate information at handover to effectively manage their buildings and is their experience of managing tenants translated into Clients briefs on new projects or ongoing improvements?

In all these we could reflect more positively on not just HOW we do things, but WHY. We have to talk more, find effective contractual means to collaborate but above all, we also have to learn to LISTEN more… …and when project team discern things are going wrong, always say “NO, we need to get it right”. n

OPINION: HOUSING POLICY | GAVIN KIERAN

Aligning national policy on housing in London The Budget and the Draft London Plan approach the housing crisis from different angles, and only time will tell whether they complement each other or cancel each other out says Gavin Kieran

Eighty six per cent of the respondents for the M3 Consulting London Development Barometer Survey (LDB) said the government was not doing enough to enable London development. That was last October.

Since then, the central government and the Greater London Authority (GLA) have outlined what they are going to do about it, through the Budget in November and the Draft London Plan in December, respectively.

First things first. Everyone agrees that the demand for housing will increase over the next five years. According to the LDB, the industry is particularly confident about build-to-rent and affordable housing with 88 per cent and 80 per cent respectively believing the demand for these types of housing will increase, compared to 45 per cent for residential sales.

While delivering housing is high on agendas all around, it is not surprising that the Budget, the Draft London Plan and the industry do not wholly align.

The Budget is betting the house on a consumer-driven approach. The Draft London Plan is supporting the supply side - but only if new requirements are met and with the expressed intent of resetting the baseline for London land value.

The industry just wants to get on with the developing part. Responses to the LDB, which M3 Consulting launched in Autumn 2017 to capture industry sentiment in the current climate of political and economic uncertainty, have suggested that it would like the central and local governments to implement measures that help the day-to-day business of development in London, such as its top three priorities identified through the survey.

The top priority for the industry was to improve town planning processes. Moreover, two out of three respondents named the London Mayor as the

www.planninginlondon.com

person having the most influence over London development activity over the next five years.

With the Budget scant on details regarding town planning, there is much riding on the Draft London Plan.

The good news is that the Plan puts property at the core of the Mayor’s vision for a prosperous capital. It aims to clarify and possibly simplify the planning process, through its directive approach to the boroughs, its 35 per cent viability test, and a more inclusive definition of affordable homes. It suggests a presumption of consent for housing proposed on smaller sites. It bears in mind that business keeps the city ticking, by protecting commercial uses in key areas and loosening up traditional views on mix of uses and density.

The question is whether these measures actually improve town planning processes. Details of the certain processes like the design reviews may yet determine transparency and efficiency. The LDB reveals that c. 70 per cent and 66 per cent believe anticipated rises in construction and finance cost respectively, will have a negative impact on development activity. The thresholds of affordable housing and more stringent design requirements proposed by the Draft London Plan would put pressure on the bottom line.

Clearly the onus is on the industry to get creative with design, delivery and business models.

Speaking of adapting to business models, the Budget has made funding available for infrastructure and housing, albeit with caveats. For example, London’s key win would be the commitment to Crossrail 2, but central government has asked for half to come from London funding streams. Funding was also made available for local authorities for infrastructure and housing delivery, but primarily through loans and lifting borrowing caps. Given the

Gavin Kieran is director at M3 Consulting

squeeze on local authority funding throughout austerity, the Government, by implication, is placing the burden of commercial savviness on local authorities.

In any case, the funding should allow local authorities to invest in the construction of new homes for sale as well as rent. Writing off housing associations from public ledgers should also, in theory, enable a wider range of partnerships in the delivery of a wider range of homes.

As for the Draft London Plan, it’s sticking to negotiating with the Government, business rate retention, S106, and CIL to raise money for additional infrastructure. That, and to build more where the infrastructure already exists.

Both the Budget and the Draft London Plan aim to take a more direct approach to releasing land for development. The Budget is calling on the HCA to intervene more directly with the land market, and the Mayor is calling for more powers - a bit like the HCA’s. In the meantime, the plan is for everyone to make the most of their developable land.

The Budget and the Draft London Plan approach the housing crisis from different angles, and only time – and yet to be formed details – will tell whether they complement each other towards the same goal or cancel each other out. n The London Development Barometer is an industry wide survey which helps track sentiment within the capital’s development sector. M3 Consulting is an independent, specialist development management business

Issue 103 October-December 2017

19

ANDY ROGERS

Losing the plot on the green belt Has the green belt become too much of a sacred cow? ponders Andy Rogers It’s that time of year again - no, not New Year resolutions or raging at the inability of transport links to cope with snow/frost/ice but the old chestnut of threats to the green belt posed by a desperate need for more housing.

Next year is the 80th anniversary of the launch of London’s green belt in 1938 and 2015 was the 60th anniversary of the 1955 Circular 42/55 that invited planning authorities across the country to consider establishing green belts as part of local planning policy. The aim at that time was to check sprawl, prevent coalescence and preserve towns’ special character. But the concept has, almost from its outset, become more and more concerned with preservation of an (often imaginary) countryside ideal and has suffered severely - even more so today - from lack of pragmatism or flexibility.

So the Circular, issued by Duncan Sandys as housing minister, was intended to prevent urban sprawl: by 2003 there were 14 distinct green belts around major towns and cities, covering about 13 per cent of England. This land is not necessarily green and includes scrub and ex-industrial land as well as fenced-in sites, very often neither open nor accessible. Because the initial concept was geared to the containment of towns and cities rather than the protection of countryside, much of the green belt is far less picturesque than popular perception would suggest.

Over the past sixty years an unreasonably

strict adherence to the green belt ideal, in too many areas not worthy of full green belt status, has diminished the original concept.

Even in high-quality areas that have been designated local planners are often insistent that even modest or sensible development must be refused because of a proposal’s alleged ‘harm’ to the non-existent open character of the green belt, without any proper regard to the original aim of preventing urban sprawl. A few examples are illustrated below. The overall effect of a persistent failure to reassess less meaningful or worthy green belt areas has escalated to the point where automatic refusals for new housing or infrastructure no longer have any logic or coherence. As a result over many years there have been recurring suggestions that parts of the green belt should be downgraded in importance, with limited development allowed where there are pockets of poorquality and isolated or inaccessible land.

There is now little or no relationship between the aspirations of the original authors of the green belt ideal, the mechanics of potential improvement and public accessibility that was once envisaged for such land, and the problems of administration as experienced today.

In response to the ever-growing demand for housing land, numerous reports and studies have suggested loosening the green belt including Kate Barker’s 2006 Review of Land Use Planning and the Social Market Foundation’s concurrent observation that much green belt land is ideal for sustainable new housing development because it is close to existing infrastructure and established communities, so that green belt land “that is

Simply defending every marginal rural hectare, regardless of its quality … is effectively to say the entire Sustainable Communities strategy is misconceived.” – Sir Peter Hall, 2006 We have completely lost the plot on the green belt. – Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, 2017

not of any significant natural value” could be deregulated. In 2007 Natural England even acknowledged publicly that green belts should be reassessed to be less extensive, preferably as “green gaps, green wedges and buffers rather than continuous belts”, allowing new housing to be integrated with existing urban fringes rather than located (unsustainably) beyond them in the more distant countryside.

Sensible examples do exist. Between 2000 and the adoption of an updated local plan in 2006, a consortium of Cambridge and Huntingdon councils released some 215 hectares of green belt land for redevelopment. Recently at the National Planning Forum Clive Skidmore, Head of Development at Birmingham City Council, pointed out that his authority’s new local plan included building on part of the City’s green belt and was passed by an Inspector because that’s the only way to find sufficient land to meet objectively assessed housing need.

The current Institute for Global Change report Home Truths: A Progressive Vision of Housing Policy in the 21st Century observes that, where green belt land “is fertile, scenic and easily categorised as part of the national heritage” it meets the aspirations of the CPRE and others, but too often “the green

LEFT: The replacement house on the left was granted planning approval, but reconstruction of the roofs of its neighbour on the right to provide larger/additional bedrooms was refused permission because of “the harm caused to the openness of the Green Belt”.

20

Planning in London

belt protects low-quality land from a more efficient use”. The report adds that, for the Metropolitan Green Belt around London, “protections against development have actually expanded” - leading to “a form of ‘Green Sprawl’”.

Housing development on green belt land can only be considered when there are exceptional circumstances and no harm will be caused, as set out in PPG2 and enshrined in section 9 of the NPPF. The CPRE suggested earlier in 2017 that safeguards are needed against “regular nibbling” and that green belt changes or development must be “truly exceptional”. What does that really mean?

February’s Housing White Paper proposed that councils must review housing allocations every five years, while a DCLG spokesman, as then reported in The Times, confirmed that “the white paper does not change our strong protections for the green belt”.

But new homes have to go somewhere. It does seem clear to me that our failure over many decades to provide sufficient new, and particularly affordable, housing has resulted today in ‘exceptional circumstances’ that reasonably justify reassessment of much green belt land. This is especially true where that land does not satisfy the aspirations of the original ideal, which was, after all, simply to prevent unchecked urban expansion. n

ABOVE: Hellman’s cover from PiL 89

There is [already] a degree of creeping development and ad hoc release close to the edges of the urban fringe … it would be better to have a more honest approach, recognising the flexibility of the green belt in order to plan effectively.

– Jeremy Edge, 1993 ABOVE: Permitted development rights do exist in green belt areas (contrary to what some people may believe), so that anomalies can be exploited: in granting approval for the rebuilding of this semi-derelict house in the Hertfordshire green belt that had been refused permission by the Council, the Inspector noted that reconstruction was preferable to a “fall-back” scheme of very extensive alterations/additions to the existing that were allowed as permitted development.

LEFT: Reconstruction of run-down kennels (as required by the local authority’s Environmental Health Department) was initially turned down by the planners as it was deemed to be “inappropriate development” in the Metropolitan Green Belt despite being entirely hidden by trees on one side and and a raised railway embankment on the other

www.planninginlondon.com

Issue 104 January-March 2018

21

BRIEFING | PLANNING PERFORMANCE

Commercial developments granted down 11 per cent on a year earlier Latest planning performance by English districts and London boroughs: Planning Applications in England: July to September 2017 OVERVIEW Between July and September 2017, district level planning authorities in England: • received 117,700 applications for planning permission, down two per cent on the corresponding quarter of 2016; • granted 98,800 decisions, down three per cent from the same quarter in 2016; this is equivalent to 88 per cent of decisions, unchanged on the same quarter of 2016; • decided 88 per cent of major applications within 13 weeks or the agreed time, up from 85 per cent a year earlier; • granted 12,500 residential applications, down three per cent on a year earlier: 1,600 for major developments and 10,900 for minors; • granted 2,600 applications for commercial developments, down 11 per cent on a year earlier; and • received 10,400 applications for prior approval for permitted development rights, down five per cent from the same quarter of 2016. Of these, 1,500 applications were for changes to residential use, of which 1,000 were approved without having to go through the full planning process.

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

• granted 380,700 decisions, in line with the figure for the year ending September 2016; • granted 49,700 decisions on residential developments: 6,600 for major developments and 43,100 for minors, up on the year ending September 2016 by six per cent and two per cent respectively; and • granted 10,500 applications for commercial developments, down six per cent on the year ending September 2016.

Planning applications During July to September to June 2017, authorities undertaking district level planning in England received 117,700 applications for planning permission, down two per cent on the corresponding quarter in 2016. In the year ending September 2017, authorities received 476,300 planning applications, down one per cent on the year ending September 2016 (Live Tables P120/P132/P134 and Table 1).

Planning decisions Authorities reported 112,700 decisions on planning applications in July to September 2017, a decrease of three per cent on the 116,000 decisions in the same quarter of the previous year. In the year ending September 2017, authorities

decided 434,300 planning applications, in line with the number in the year ending September 2016 (Live Tables P120/P133/P134 & Table 1).

Applications granted During July to September 2017, authorities granted 98,800 decisions, down three per cent from the same quarter in 2016. Authorities granted 88 per cent of all decisions, unchanged on the September quarter of 2016 (Live Tables P120/P133). Overall, 83 per cent of major and minor decisions were granted. The percentage of decisions granted varied between local planning authorities, ranging this quarter from 33 to 100 per cent for major developments, 50 to 100 per cent for minor developments and 60 to 100 per cent for other developments (Live Tables P120/P131). Over the 12 months to September 2017, 380,700 decisions were granted, in line with the figure for the year to September 2016 (Live Tables P122/P132 and Table 1).

Historical context Figure 1 and Table 1 show that, since 2005, the numbers of applications received, decisions made and applications granted have each followed a similar pattern. As well as the usual within- year pattern of peaks in the Summer and troughs in the Winter, there was a clear downward trend during the 2008 economic downturn, with figures remaining broadly level since then, albeit with numbers granted showing a slight upward trend. Figure 1 shows that the numbers of applications received in recent years are some way below the peak in 2004/05.

Historical figures for all district level decisions dating back to 2004 are set out in Live Table P120, with separate breakdowns for residential and commercial decisions being shown in Live Tables P120A and P120B respectively. These latter two tables are discussed below in the sections on residential and commercial decisions.

Speed of decisions • In July to September 2017, 88 per cent of major applications were decided within 13 weeks or within the agreed time for Planning Performance

22

Planning in London

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

Agreements (PPAs), Extensions of Time (EoTs) and Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), compared with 85 per cent in the September quarter 2016. • In the September quarter of 2017, 84 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 81 per cent and 88 per cent a year earlier respectively.

The percentage of decisions made in time varied between local planning authorities, ranging this quarter from 25 to 100 per cent for major developments, 21 to 100 per cent for minor developments and 20 to 100 per cent for other developments (Live Tables P120, P123 and P131).

Because deciding an application on time can include the use of a performance agreement, the calculation of the proportion of decisions made

www.planninginlondon.com

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

Issue 104 January-March 2018

23

BRIEFING | PLANNING PERFORMANCE

>>> 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 developments and for changes of use, householder developments and advertisements are now 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 turning into a small decrease, in absolute and percentage terms, in the latest quarter. In reality, this longer upward trend 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 59 per cent during July to September 2017 (Table 2).

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 dis- trict 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 most recent quarters.

Similarly, Live Table P152a, presents data on the performance of district level local planning au- thorities 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 2016.2 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 July to September 2017, 16,900 decisions were made on applications for residential 3 developments, of which 12,500 (74 per cent) were granted. The total number of residential decisions made decreased by two per cent from the September quarter 2016, with the number granted dropping three per cent. The number of major residential decisions granted increased by one per cent to 1,600, whereas the number of minor residential decisions granted remained decreased by four per cent to 10,900 (Live Tables P120A, P123 and P135). In the year ending September 2017, authorities granted 6,600 major and 43,100 minor residential applications, up by six and two per cent respectively on the year ending September 2016 (Live Tables P120A and P136).

Commercial 4 decisions In July to September 2017, 2,800 decisions were made on applications for commercial developments, of which 2,600 (91 per cent) were granted. The total number of commercial decisions made decreased by ten per cent on the same quarter of 2016. In the year ending September 2017, 10,500 applications for commercial developments were granted, down six per cent on the year ending September 2016 (Live Table P120B).

Trends in numbers of residential and commercial decisions Historically, numbers of residential decisions dropped sharply during 2008 (particularly for minor decisions) but have been increasing since 2012. Numbers of commercial decisions made also decreased sharply during 2008, and have since stabilised at around 2,200 per year for major and 10,000 per year for minor commercial developments. In 2016/17, numbers of minor

24

Planning in London

commercial decisions were at about 45 per cent of the pre-recession peak, with the numbers of major developments being at about 62 per cent (Live Tables P120A and P120B, Figure 4).

Trends in the percentage of residential and commercial decisions granted The percentages of major and minor residential decisions granted increased between 2008/09 (about 65 per cent for each type) and 2010/11 (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 (Live Tables P120A and P120B, Figure 5).

Householder developments Householder developments are those developments to a house which require planning permission such as extensions, loft conversions and conservatories. The number of decisions on householder developments decreased by one per cent, from 58,200 decisions in the quarter ending September 2016 to 57,700 decisions in the corresponding quarter in 2017, when they accounted for 51 per cent of all decisions. Authorities granted 91 per cent of these applications and decided 91 per cent within eight weeks or the agreed time (Live Table P123).

Prior approvals for permitted developments Following the creation in May 2013 of some additional permitted development right categories (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 latest quarter for which they have been collected (July to September 2017) are included in Live Tables PDR1 (local authority level figures) and PDR2 (England totals).

Of the 10,400 applications reported in the July to September quarter of 2017, prior approval was not required for 5,700, and permission was granted for 2,500 and refused for 2,200. This resulted in an overall acceptance rate 5 of 79 per cent. Sixty-nine per cent of applications (7,200) related to larger householder extensions, with six

www.planninginlondon.com

per cent relating to each of office to residential changes and agricultural to residential changes.

16 per cent related to ‘all other’ permitted development rights, up from 12 per cent a year earlier.

Taking i) granted applications and ii) those for which prior approval was not required together, 8,200 applications were approved without having to go through the full planning process, down nine per cent from a year earlier.

Within an overall decrease of five per cent in the reported total number of PDR applications between July to September 2016 and July to September 2017: • larger householder extensions decreased by seven per cent; • office to residential changes decreased by 14 per cent; • agricultural to residential changes decreased by 28 per cent; and • ‘all other’ permitted development rights increased by 24 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 1,500 applications for changes to residential use were reported in July to September 2017, of which 1,000 (69 per cent) were approved without having to go through the full planning process.

The overall acceptance rate for the fourteen quarters between the collection of detailed data started in April 2014 and the end of September 2017 is 81 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 has been 79 per cent in the quarters ending June and September 2017 (Live Table PDR2).

Overall during the fourteen quarters ending September 2017, district planning authorities reported 140,800 applications for prior approvals for permitted developments. For 80,200 (57 per cent) of them prior approval was not required, 34,100 (24 per cent) were granted and 26,500 (19 per cent) were refused (Figure 6).

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 April 2014, there have been 36,500 applications in 2014/15, 41,400 in 2015/16 and 41,500 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 (Live Table PDR 2 and Figure 7).

This significant increase in numbers of applications is consistent with the annual increases in the number of dwellings added to the net housing supply through change of use of: 65 per cent in 2014/15, 48 per cent in 2015/16 and 22 per cent in 2016/177. n

Issue 104 January-March 2018

25

CYBERSECURITY | DAREN OLIVER

Spotting a spoof Daren Oliver considers whether fraudulent emails are getting more difficult to identify Once upon a time, sending and receiving emails was a new-fangled process used to substitute the written letter. Mostly reserved for academic circles, or verifying important information following a spoken conversation, few predicted email communication would flourish as it has over the last two decades. Email has changed the face of human interaction, overtaking the telephone as the number one method of personal and professional information exchange.

By the end of 2017, it is estimated there will be 4.9 billion email accounts worldwide with business emails accounting for 929 million mailboxes – a veritable hunting ground for cyber criminals.

With the advent of email and the introduction of its successors, such as text and instant messaging services, it has become easier than ever before to contact those who were previously considered ‘unreachable’. Conversations and canvassing over the telephone, which has traditionally been the mainstay for many business operations, has become less frequent and the average email inbox is now littered with loquacious literature.

Of course, firing off an email into cyberspace is no guarantee you will penetrate the person you intend on getting a response from. If anything, it’s the perfect excuse for him or her to ignore your carefully crafted correspondence. As inboxes

26

Planning in London

become more flooded, individuals will naturally screen each email, picking and choosing upon sight who to reply to, based on recognition and associated content. But what has this meant for fraudulent activity?

The job of a cyber criminal has intensified over the past few years, requiring them to be increasingly sophisticated and clever in their approach. In the past, criminals have traditionally relied on ‘flood them fast’ email distribution by targeting numerous inboxes with spam notifications purporting to be from businesses such as banks.

Awareness campaigns from the businesses themselves have helped to tackle the issue, meaning many quick-thinking consumers have started to grow more savvy, refusing to click on unsolicited links.

As a result, cyber criminals have turned to social engineering and the support of realistic looking spoof emails to dupe their targets. These mimic everything from ‘links’ to incredible deals on offer from well-known retailers to emails from trusted contacts, where the sender’s address has been so subtlety adjusted it appears to be legitimate. In fact, so accurate are these emails in their appearance it is calling into question whether correspondence from organisations dealing with sensitive data, such as governments, should be using email accounts at all, and whether a more

Daren Oliver is managing director of Fitzrovia IT www.fitzroviait.com

secure method of communication should be adopted.

For example, the recent cyber attack on UK Parliament, which resulted in the breach of dozens of inboxes, could have been an incredibly valuable hack for the cyber criminals involved.

Highly sensitive content can be sold on for a huge financial gain to those hungry for damaging and destructive data they can use to their advantage.

Information in the wrong hands could cause worldwide catastrophe.

There is no outright answer to dealing with illegitimate emails and spoof spam. Cutting email out of the equation entirely is not realistic. Of course, fraudulent activity can be kept at a minimum and mitigated by adopting up-to-date software and implementing well-planned, comprehensive backup strategies.

However, it is human beings themselves that hold the key to unlocking the answers to the current cyber crime conundrum. Research by the Information Commissioner’s Office reported that 93 per cent of incidents investigated at the end of 2015 were caused by human error. Clearly, as fraudsters become more adept at creating cunning ways to cut through the cyber psyche of their targets, spotting a spoof email will become nearly impossible. Nobody is immune.

Re-educating the workforce and raising awareness of the issues surrounding cyber crime are essential. Regular testing and ‘digital fire drills’ for staff should be as much a part of a company’s strategy as their sales and marketing plans.

‘Friendly phishing expeditions’ – where staff are sent ‘spoof’ emails at random to test their reactions are one way of ensuring there are no chinks in your employees’ armour. Only then, once cyber crime awareness officially becomes part of company policy, will we gain some control over addressing the current vulnerabilities. n

LETTERS

LETTERS

From Peter Eversden MBE Dear Editor Sir Mark Bolleat's comments about communities in London were insulting and so wrong ['Bonfire of the Nimbys' - ES 18Oct2017 - http://bit.ly/2ySTDbG].

Residents in London put effort into getting their Council's Local Plan to define what housing developments of what type will be delivered and where.

They want the right kind of affordable homes for their children and grand children. They become 'Nimbys' only when housing schemes are proposed or approved which do not conform to policy, fail to meet needs and harm their neighbourhood.

There are over 270,000 approved homes in London that are not being built. How can Bolleat say it is a "myth" that building is too slow?

New and large market homes which are sold off plan as investments for foreign buyers fail to meet >>> London's housing requirements and keep prices high. They use land that is needed for real homes for London's workers. How does Bolleat think that problem is another myth?

He proposes that young "have nots" who are priced off the housing ladder should be heard but it is developers who are not listening. It is not the planning system that is at fault.

Bolleat wants penalties applied to public sector bodies that hold on to land they do not need. The real issue is that when they dispose of it they want maximum profit, rather than sell it at existing use values. That reduces the percentage of affordable homes that are likely to be built on such land.

Densification of parts of London is possible, as he wrote, but only if done in a way that is sensitive to local context and character. Few people or planning committees would object to more of the mansion blocks and multi-storey terraces that have delivered high densities and beautiful townscapes since Georgian and Victorian times.

The problem is that architects offer ugly sky-

www.planninginlondon.com

scrapers instead, with a lack of the mix of types of homes required.

Developers should plan to deliver what London's boroughs and their residents want on the land for development that we have, then Nimbyism would fade away and decisions would be quick and low cost.

Instead of that, Bolleat recommends building homes on Green Belt land but such open space belongs to us all and opposition to its loss would arouse more objections.

Peter Eversden MBE London Forum of Amenity and Civic Societies See also: LP&DF meeting with Sir Mark, minutes on pages 34-43.

“The depressing truth is that corruption is endemic in Britain’s bureaucratic planning system. In every corner of the country, you can find stories of bribery, with local councillors and officials rigging the planning process for their own gain.”

– Thus wrote Rohan Silva in The Times with reference to their story of a £2m bribe being sought for a planning permission in the East End (see https://goo.gl/CQbWVs).

Extreme and unlikely as this proposition is, it inevitably caused a storm. One response is this letter from a member of the RTPI’s ICN (Independent Consultants’ Network) which sadly has to be anonymous:

Dear Editor What really deserves an article is the sheer incompetence of many “decision makers” (councillors) who sit on the planning committees up and down the country, many of whom have no idea what they are talking about and vote on applications in a manner which they think will maximise their vote pulling power at the next local elections.

Take councillors out of the equation and we might actually have a system that delivers.

I remember thinking this some 35 years ago when I sat in on my very first planning committee as an inexperienced junior planning officer; it’s not changed an iota and I still feel just the same when attending meetings these days. Some are OK (ish); others are beyond a joke.

I’ve recently started compiling a notebook of ludicrous comments and questions of councillors.

Just wish I’d started it 35 years ago. I doubt I will gather enough for a whole book myself but it could have potential if it were a group effort.

Anybody interested in a collaborative effort?

Anon (The Editor will put you in touch with Anon!). n

Deloitte Real Estate’s crane survey Key findings: • Office construction is down 9 per cent since the last survey and the last six months have seen the lowest volume of new space started since 2014 • This caution is somewhat mitigated by demolition levels hovering around 8m sq ft, indicating a desire to keep developing • There have been above average levels of completions and 2017 is on course to deliver a 13year high of space • This is welcome news to a buoyant rental market in which 44 per cent of space under construction is already let.

Outlook • Demand for new space will remain resilient • The rise of vacancy rates across central London will continue • The continued rise of co-working space is set to impact the market • Brexit will move Real Estate up the agenda for businesses.

Issue 104 January-March 2018

27

BRIEFING: POPULATION | CENTRE FOR CITIES

The London Intelligence: Demography Centre for London’s new intelligence bulletin assesses London’s current population trends London’s ‘youth bulge’ is starting to narrow.

The biggest contributor to population growth in London was net international migration, adding just over 126,000 individuals during the year. Natural change (births and deaths) added over 80,000, a small year- on-year rise. Net internal migration saw 93,000 people leaving the capital, which was significantly more than a year previously – potentially linked to increasingly high costs of living.

National Insurance Number Registrations There is a notable drop off in National Insurance number (NINo) registrations by non-UK nationals coming to the UK to work in the first three months over 2017 compared to the same period last year. While NINo registrations have fluctuated over the past decade, this represents this biggest year-on-year decline since Q3 in 2015.

A fall in registrations from the EU accounted for three quarters of the total drop. Again, there are some stark differences for NINo registrations at the borough level, even when adjusted for population, as is shown in Figure 2.

“The significant fall in National Insurance number registrations, especially for those coming from Demography International migration has seen a decline – registrations for new national insurance numbers have dropped 15 per cent since this time last year. A fall in registrations from the EU accounted for three quarters of the total drop in new registrations.

Population Latest data available on London’s population are taken from mid-year estimates for 2016. These show that the capital’s population continued to grow, but slightly more slowly than in the two previous years. This recent growth is not evenly spread across the capital, as is shown in Figure 1.

London’s age profile continues to shift. The number of 20-34 year olds fell slightly in the year to mid-2016, while some other age cohorts grew considerably: 70-74 rose by 4.6 per cent, 55-59 by 3.7 per cent, and 10-14 by 3.2 per cent. These are representative of longer-term trends, suggesting that

28

Planning in London

BRIEFING

Croydon Council plans to offer residential design services by its in-house architects

elsewhere in the EU, is the first hard data showing that migration for work purposes to the UK is slowing. London will be disproportionately affected, since European workers, at all skill levels, have been hugely important to the growth and dynamism of the London economy over the last two decades.” – Jonathan Portes, Professor of Economics and Public Policy, King’s College, London Compared to the rest of the UK, registrations per head of population are significantly higher for

London, often by a factor of around three. This may result from London’s status as ‘first port of call’ for new arrivals, who may then move beyond the capital. It may also reflect the city’s long history as a haven for migrants and home to many diaspora communities. n

FROM: Centre for London, The London Intelligence edited by KAT HANNA, TOM COLTHORPE see http://www.centreforlondon.org

Croydon Council’s two-year-old architectural team, based within its arms-length development company Brick by Brick, is to be launched as a commercial practice under the new name Common Ground Architecture.

Chloë Phelps, the unit’s head of design, told the AJ that it was ready to provide help to other councils and public sector bodies design housing on small, awkward, urban sites: ‘Designing a high-quality and viable development is tough on these sites,’ she said, ‘but we have demonstrated it is genuinely possible to make these work no matter the size or shape. ‘We are keen to work on all projects, however big or small, and we have experience in a range of sectors, not just homes. We want to work with other councils, developers and designers as we feel there is a benefit in cross-pollination of ideas and addressing the skill imbalance between public and private sectors.’

She said the team would also offer design adviser or critical friend services to external clients.

The unit, via Brick by Brick, purchases and uses the services of architects who are directly employed by the council. Profits generated by the practice will be returned to the council, its sole shareholder, to be reinvested in the borough.

The team’s first scheme is 14 new homes on Station Road in the South Norwood Conservation Area, work set to start on site shortly. They are currently working on three schemes in the borough.

Brick by Brick is one of a wave of standalone housing development companies being created by councils under powers introduced under the 2011 Localism Act. n See article by Brick-by-Brick’s Colm Lacey in PiL 101.

BELOW: Station Road by Common Ground Architecture

www.planninginlondon.com

Issue 104 January-March 2018

29

CLIPBOARD

Mayor's new housing targets challenge the boroughs When the Greater London Authority published its new London Plan borough housing targets in late October, it’s fair to say that the announcement did not go down that well with some council planning chiefs, wrote John Geoghegan in Planning.

"It’s completely undeliverable," said Steve Barton, strategic planning manager at the London Borough of Ealing, who reports similar feeling among planning teams in other west London authorities. Ealing is one of 13 boroughs that will see their housing targets double or more under the new figures.

In total, 27 authorities will see a rise. An analysis of the GLA’s figures shows that outer London boroughs will take the bulk of the growth in the overall target for the capital, which would rise from 42,000 up to 65,000 homes a year (see map).

Speaking to Planning after the targets were announced, James Murray, the deputy mayor for housing, said the administration had inherited a model of housing delivery that "relied quite heavily on high-end, expensive for sale properties in inner London".

Murray said the GLA was keen to complement that "with greater delivery in outer London where homes built for sale are relatively more affordable". He added: "We believe that’s the way to have a more sustainable supply of housing and to boost overall numbers." To aid this shift in policy terms, Murray confirmed that the draft London Plan, to be published later this month, would include a presumption in favour of smaller sites, something trailed in September’s draft housing strategy.

"What’s really important is that the target set out for every borough is ambitious. Every part of London needs to play a role in building a lot more housing," he said. "This will mean building at greater densities across the capital, bringing forward small as well as large sites, and building at a greater rate than we’ve seen before."

30

Planning in London

But Barton described Ealing’s target as "complete nonsense", pointing out that it represents almost a three-fold increase on the borough’s target of about three years ago. Before the last revision of the London Plan in 2014, its annual target was 900 homes, he said, which then rose to 1,300 and is now up to 2,800. While Ealing is a "very progrowth borough", he criticised the 10-year timescale expected for delivery of the target as unattainable.

Another key concern is over the smaller sites element of the GLA’s new housing target for Ealing, he said, which comes to 1,000 a year. "The three-fold increase in smaller sites is what’s causing real consternation here and across west London. Currently, we are delivering 300 homes a year on smaller sites." The nature of smaller sites means they are "much more difficult to plan for", said Barton, and the council lacks resources to allocate enough plots on that scale. The size of the housing delivery increase requires "much more funding" for infrastructure improvements and land assembly, he added.

Mike Kiely, chairman of the Planning Officers Society and its London spokesman, said that many areas of outer London were "poorly-served by public transport" and would need transport investment to allow building at higher densities. Such boroughs, many of which currently find resourcing a challenge, might also struggle to recruit enough planners to cope with the uplift in workload, he added.

Duncan Field, partner at law firm Norton Rose Fulbright, said he expected town centres to be a primary focus of new housing in outer London:

"The big opportunities for developers will be around town centres particularly those with good public transport connections." But boroughs "will have to be more proactive in planning for housing" in town centres, he said, which would potentially require compulsory purchase orders to assemble land.

Jonathan Manns, a director in the planning team at property firm Colliers, agreed that the onus would be on boroughs "to help facilitate development" by taking a "more active role in identifying suitable land". A key concern for local authorities would be to get "buy-in" from local communities for increased housing levels by demonstrating how "new development will directly benefit them". "Given the speed and scale of the changes that’s a significant challenge," he said.

In response to Barton's claims, a spokesman for the Mayor of London said: "Housing capacity in the draft London Plan is calculated in partnership with boroughs by estimating delivery from sites with planning permission and assessing other large sites for potential capacity.

"The targets include an estimate of the increase in housing delivery on small sites which can be achieved through policy changes in the new London Plan, including a new presumption in favour of small housing developments.

"We want to work in partnership with boroughs to support them to achieve these targets.

Solving the housing crisis is not just the task of boroughs or the planning system, it will require developers, housing associations, councils, government and communities to work together to deliver the homes London needs." n ©Planning

30

An all-women team has won Oxford-Cambridge infrastructure contest 54 teams had a go at the National Infrastructure Commission ideas competition for a development corridor linking Oxford and Cambridge.

It sought inspirational visions for the future of development within the arc between Cambridge, Milton Keynes, Northampton and Oxford, one of the UK’s fastest-growing and most productive regions but its success is threatened by housing and transport constraints.

Featuring architects Kay Hughes, Annalie Riches and Sarah Featherstone, the VeloCity team also includes Jennifer Ross of Tibbalds, Petra Marko of Marko and Placemakers and Judith Sykes of Expedition Engineering.

The National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) saw their vision for a million homes built in the region by 2050 supported by chancellor Philip Hammond.

A good read The draft London Plan, Easy Read version (ABOVE) is a lesson in communication. Here’s one of its 21 pages. The full version, on the other hand runs to over 500 pages

Fees up and PiP on the way The regulations introducing a 20 per cent fee increase for planning applications, as well as other changes to the planning fees regime were approved in December.

BELOW: Big back garden - The winning NIC Oxford-Cambridge corridor competition by Tibbalds Planning and Urban Design, Mikhail Riches, Featherstone Young, Marko and Placemakers, Expedition Engineering and Khaa

www.planninginlondon.com

The proposals also introduce fees for planning permissions in principle, fees for applications necessary because a permitted development right has been removed, and a new fee for prior approval for a range of new permitted development rights.

The regulations were formally ‘made’ by the secretary of state just before Christmas, and will come into effect on January 17th. n BELOW: Station announcement – only in Cambridge....

Issue 104 January-March 2018

31

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

¡ PILLO! son with Botox. You don’t get the same sense of the past. It’s too clean, too sharp.’

He urged planners to ‘preserve the city in a minimal way rather than try to make big architectural statements’, continuing: ‘It’s like when you are restoring a picture – you do the minimum you have to just to keep the picture intact and make sense of it. That should be the approach. There’s too much imitation Georgian architecture. Most cities are eclectic. There’s a bit of medieval, Georgian, some Victorian and some 20th century. That’s fine.

Bath is different because it was built within 100 years or less. It has a homogeneity. You spoil that if you have an eclectic mix. You eat away at the homogeneity.’

PD for replacement buildings Permitted development rights for housing are set to include demolition and rebuilding, a provision largely unnoticed in the recent budget.

This was first considered in October 2015 when there was a government consultation but things then went quiet suggesting the idea may have been dropped. The success of the freedom to convert offices to generally low-cost homes is evidenced by the additional 30,000 units achieved in England between 2015 and 2017, almost a third of which are in London, according to DCLG statistics. The potential for additional homes to be achieved by allowing demolition and rebuilding under the prior notification procedure has obvious appeal to ministers.

However, it has to be assumed that architectural quality will need to be assessed somehow and a creative and streamlined assessment process will have to be dreamed up.

Ideas to the editor please!

Sheltered shortage Paul Finch, writing in Property Week, has a go at Shelter. ‘Compared with today," he writes "the 1970s housing shortage was a near miracle of supply and demand balance, although then – as now – if you are homeless that was of little comfort.

Housing campaign group Shelter was in its first flush, and one can only wonder at how an organisation that has proved so unsuccessful manages to survive. As is sometimes the case in British public life, nothing succeeds like failure: the proposition is that without Shelter, things could have been even worse. Discuss.”

An icon for Croydon Croydon Council has approved an application for two towers of 68 and 41 storeys, linked by an 11storey podium structure, which, the developers claim, will become the architectural centrepiece of Croydon. Designed by CZWG Architects, it is a high point of their zany collection of London buildings. 'One Lansdowne’ (ABOVE) will contain

www.planninginlondon.com

New towers will transform the City skyline by 2026

794 flats, 35,000 sq m of offices, retail, a swimming pool and gym, a bar, restaurant and a public viewing gallery. It will be near East Croydon and West Croydon Stations and opposite the Whitgift shopping centre.

A virtual model, commissioned by the City of London Corporation shows how the skyline of London's financial district will be affected by 2026, based on current plans.

The images show a group of 13 skyscrapers that have been consented or are under construction."It is unprecedented to see such a scale of development taking place at one time in the Square Mile," said Chris Hayward, chairman of the City’s planning committee. n

Bath ‘like an old person with Botox’ Film director Ken Loach has criticised recent developments in his home city of Bath, saying there is ‘too much imitation Georgian architecture’ reports the AJ. Speaking to The Guardian, Loach, also accused planners of making ‘big architectural statements’ over preserving the city and said that the World Heritage Site had become ‘too clean’.

Loach said: ‘Bath was dusty and a little shabby when we moved here. It did look its age and you felt its history in its streets and buildings and little alleyways. The sense of the past was palpable. There were some bad modern buildings but there was a patina of age.

‘The problem now is that it has been sharpened up for the tourists. It’s too clean. It’s like an old per-

Rendering by GMJ http://www.gmj.net.

Issue 104 January-March 2018

33

$YDLODEOH QRZ IURP %DWK 3XEOLVKLQJ 0DUWLQ *RRGDOO·V GHILQLWLYH JXLGHV WR 8VH RI /DQG &KDQJHV RI 8VH 2)) )25 3/$11,1* ,1 /21'21 5($'(56 86( &2'( 3/21 :+(1 25'(5,1* 7KH GHILQLWLYH KDQGERRN H[SODLQLQJ WKH OHJDO UXOHV JRYHUQLQJ WKH XVH RI ODQG DQG EXLOGLQJV DV ZHOO DV PDWHULDO FKDQJHV RI XVH Ɣ VW HGLWLRQ SXEOLVKHG 1RYHPEHU Ɣ SDJHV SDSHUEDFN Ɣ 3ULQW … … S S Ɣ 3ULQW GLJLWDO EXQGOH … 9$7 Ɣ 'LJLWDO RQO\ … 9$7 Ɣ ,6%1

7KH RQO\ XS WR GDWH FRPSUHKHQVLYH SUDFWLFDO JXLGH WR SHUPLWWHG FKDQJHV RI XVH XQGHU WKH PXFK FKDQJHG *HQHUDO 3HUPLWWHG 'HYHORSPHQW 2UGHU Æ” QG HGLWLRQ SXEOLVKHG 2FWREHU Æ” SDJHV SDSHUEDFN Æ” 3ULQW Â… Â… S S Æ” 3ULQW GLJLWDO EXQGOH Â… 9$7 Æ” 'LJLWDO RQO\ Â… 9$7 Æ” ,6%1

5HDG PRUH RUGHU DW ZZZ EDWKSXEOLVKLQJ FRP SODQQLQJ

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

BRIEFING | LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM

Housing, housing and housing... and a new London Plan $ $ $

$

$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$

$ $

$

$ $

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $

$

Minutes of the meeting on 11th December at HTA Design. Our host was Riette Oosthuizen.

Includes papers by HTA and Duncan Bowie. Full minute at planninginlondon.com > LP&DF

!"#$%&'()"'*)+*#()"(,-%./()+*(+"0*1(!*(&**/

!"#$%#&%'%(")%&#*"+#,"-./012#(30&#4-.5#4%%5#*"-+#5%.5.6

! " # $

(B0($'("A)&+(=1(*(+&?&#".&/("/(%*.*=#&("2(=&$)9(=",930(=1(*(+&?&#".&/;

B0($'($)(*(%")+$0$")(03*0(%*)(=&(=,$#0(")-(*)+(03&()&%&''*/1($)2/*'0/,%0,/&(( $'($)(.#*%&("/(A$##(=&($)(.#*%&($)(*(0$8&#1(8*))&/; B0(3*'("/($'(#$D&#1(0"(3*?&(03&()&%&''*/1(.#*))$)9(.&/8$''$");

<3&(3",'$)9($'(%*.*=#&("2(=&$)9('"#+(*0(./$%&(*(03*0(A$##(1$&#+(*)(*+&C,*0&(( /&0,/)(0"(*(+&?&#".&/;

C./"$&8$1"#(#$.(6#/1($/.*$<#$63&<4#=.1)/9$.*7$#./"$/.33)#($?)1"$)1$.$7#+3##$&8$'*/#31.)*15$$ .*7$1"#3#8&3#$3)(@; !,%#.-))(7#"*#0%8#,"-./01#,3.#$%%0#+%.5+/95%&#$7#./:#/05%+;+%(35%&#*395"+.6

!"#$"%&'()*$+,%-.#/$$ ()$.%)0%)$ !"#$%&'(")*!((+(,"-.-/'0 !"#$%&#'$()*+&,

Grateful thanks go to our Host Riette Oosthuizen Head of Planning, HTA, and Michael Edwards for the copious notes of the meeting provided to the Secretary who was regrettably unable to attend at short notice. â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Drummond Robson, Hon Sec LP&DF

Meeting of the Forum on Monday 11th December at the new offices of HTA Design LLP, 78 Chamber Street, London E1 8BL Our host was Planning Partner Riette Oosthuizen.

ATTENDANCE: Brian Waters (Chairman) Amit Malhotra: Telford Homes Bob Dolata: Formerly London Borough of Hackney Brian Whiteley: Planning Aid for London Cheryl Skerrit: Lichfields Duncan Bowie: UCL James Collister: HTA Jenny McCarthur: UCL

36

Planning in London

! " # $ % &

!"#$%$&'(")(#*)+(,'&-(.*/0$%,#*/#1($)(/&'.&%0("2(03&(4/&&)(5&#0(6(*)("718"/")(( *'(8,%3("2(03&(4/&&)(5&#0($'()"0(9/&&)(*)+(8,%3(9/&&)(#*)+($)(:")+")($'()"0(( $)(03&(4/&&)(5&#0;

<( 3&($8."'$0$")("2(*(3$93(0*7(")(3",'&(=,$#+&/'(03/",93(.#*))$)9("=#$9*0$")'-(*)+(*( .#*))$)9('1'0&8(9&*/&+(0"(03&(>3*?&'@()"0(03&(>3*?&()"0'@-(A3$%3(*++'(%")'$+&/*=#1(( 0"(%"'0'("2(=,$#+$)9(3",'$)9-($)%#,+$)9(03/",93(03&($8."'$0$")("2(%")+$0$")'(03*0(( 3*?&(0"(=&(%"8.#$&+(A$03(=&2"/&(=,$#+$)9(%*)(%"88&)%&; <3&(/&#,%0*)%&("2(.,=#$%('&%0"/(="+$&'(0"(/&#&*'&(',/.#,'(#*)+;

<( 3&(%"8.#&7()*0,/&("2('$0&'(03*0(3*?&(03&(."0&)0$*#(0"(=&(,'&+(2"/(( 3",'&(=,$#+$)9; (B)*+&C,*0&($)2/*'0/,%0,/&(./"?$'$");

(<3&()*0,/&("2(03&(3",'&(=,$#+$)9($)+,'0/1-(A3$%3(3*'(=&%"8&($)%/&*'$)9#1( GRPLQDWHG E\ D VPDOO JURXS RI ODUJH GHYHORSHUV SDUWO\ LQ UHVSRQVH WR WKH Č&#x2018;YH ./&?$",'(."$)0';

$ $ $ John Lett: Formerly GLA Jo Ellingham: HTA Johanna Bradford: Cratus Communications Judith Ryser:Isocarp/Ugb/Cityscope Europe Sir Mark Boleat: Chairman of HFI (and others) Michael Coupe: London Society and Coupe Planning Michael Edwards: UCL Natalya Palit: HTA Nick Cuff: Pocket Living Nick Hunter: London Forum Nicky Gavron: Chair of Planning GLA (Part) Rosemary Jenkins: London Borough of Islington Shontelle Williams: HTA Tom Ball: London Forum Apologies were received from Andy Rogers, David Bradley, Jessica Ferm, Peter Eversden and Tim Wacher

The Chairman welcomed Sir Mark Boleat, recently$ chairman of Resources at the City Corporation and author of the Report â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;The Housing Problem in London: A Broken Planning Systemâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; derived from a paper he presented to the Housing and Finance Institute. He is its Chairman. Keynotes and something of a rĂŠsumĂŠ of Sir Markâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Paper are set out above and below. â&#x20AC;&#x153;The Green Belt features prominently in the debate about land use and at times seems to be almost as much as a religion as the NHS. There is an assumption on the part of some that the Green Belt is green space open to the public and the only protection against the countryside being concreted over. Some of the facts were usefully set out in a London First report (London First, 2015): >>>

However, it is fair to point out that the purpose of the Green Belt is to limit â&#x20AC;&#x153;urban sprawlâ&#x20AC;? rather to provide green space accessible to the public. But this does not alter the fact that the effect of the Green Belt has gone well beyond restricting urban sprawl. â&#x20AC;&#x153;Are developers building too slowly and merely hanging on to land which they then trade and are they manipulating the market for land? It is true that developers do have large land banks â&#x20AC;&#x201C; often running to ten years or more, and that land is traded between developers.

However, it is absurd to suggest that developers can each make a profit by trading land between themselves. Holding land has a cost and land values can fall as well as rise. In London, residential land values fell 40 per cent between 2007 and 2009, putting a number of developers in severe financial difficulty, although there has since been a strong recovery.

Developers need a pipeline of land because the process of buying all the required land, obtaining planning permission and building out a site can take years. There are sound logistical reasons for this. House building is labour intensive, and with large sites there needs to be a steady flow of work for the various skills that are required rather than, for example, trying to install bathrooms or kitchens in 4,000 units are exactly the same time. â&#x20AC;&#x153;And, sensibly, developers do not aim to complete a large site all at the same time because local markets cannot absorb a huge increase in supply at prices that make a development worthwhile. Of course, developers are seeking to make a profit â&#x20AC;&#x201C; like all other private sector organisations that cannot rely on public subsidies to keep them$ going. $This behaviour $ $ is entirely rational. $ $ In $ the$ short term developers could speed $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $up con$ struction can $ $to some $ extent $ $ â&#x20AC;&#x201C; if they $ $ obtain $ $ the$ necessary resources and can sell more units $ $ $ $ $ off$ $ plan, but this would be a one-off effect that

would be reversed in subsequent years unless the

!"#

$#

) )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) )

)

) )

)

)

)

)

)

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

! "

$Q HYLGHQFH EDVHG GHEDWH DQG UHFRJQLWLRQ WKDW WKHUH DUH WUDGH RČ&#x17E;IV 5HFRJQLWLRQ WKDW WKH SUREOHP ZLOO QRW EH VROYHG E\ EXLOGLQJ RQ EURZQČ&#x2018;HOG ! "#$%!#"&$'(

)'*&+$,-,&$!-.#-!-.'!.,+.'/!-.'!-#0!&$!.&12'!31,"%,$+!-./&1+.!4"#$$,$+! &3",+#-,&$2!-.'!5'6'/!.&12'2!6,""!3'!31,"-(!789!&5!#!"#/+'!$1:3'/!*#$!3'!:1*.! .,+.'/!-.#$!;89!&5!#!2:#""!$1:3'/(

# $ % &

<!*.#$+'!&5!4&",*=!-&6#/%2!"#$%!12'>!,$*"1%,$+!-.'!?/''$!@'"->!#$%!4'/:,--,$+!! .,+.'/!%'$2,-,'2(

!A-/&$+!4'$#"-,'2!&$!413",*!2'*-&/!3&%,'2!-.#-!5#,"!-&!/'"'#2'!21/4"12!"#$%(

! ODQQLQJ FRQGLWLRQV WR EH UHGXFHG VLJQLČ&#x2018;FDQWO\ FRVWHG DQG GHHPHG WR EH 3 GLVFKDUJHG ZLWKLQ VHYHQ GD\V RI FHUWLČ&#x2018;FDWLRQ E\ WKH GHYHORSHU XQOHVV WKH ORFDO #1-.&/,-=!.#2!*"'#/!'B,%'$*'!-.#-!-.'!*&$%,-,&$2!.#B'!$&-!3''$!*&:4",'%!6,-.(

'

C! $21/,$+!-.#-!4"#$$,$+!%'*,2,&$2!,$!"&*#"!#1-.&/,-,'2!#/'!D&,$'%E14!6,-.!6,%'/!!

4&",*=!&3D'*-,B'2( F"#$$,$+!%'*,2,&$2!2.&1"%!3'!-#G'$!3=!/'"#-,B'"=!2:#""!4#$'"2>!6.&!.#B'! /'*',B'%!#44/&4/,#-'!-/#,$,$+>!#$%!/'4/'2'$-#-,B'2!&5!#$!#/'#!,$!6.,*.!#! %'B'"&4:'$-!6&1"%!-#G'!4"#*'!2.&1"%!3'!'0*"1%'%!5/&:!B&-,$+!&$!-.#-! %'*,2,&$(

( )

6LPSOLČ&#x2018;FDWLRQ RI WKH &RPPXQLW\ ,QIUDVWUXFWXUH /HY\ DQG 6 UHTXLUHPHQWV 4#/-,*1"#/"=!5&/!2&*,#"!.&12,$+(!

F&",-,*#"!"'#%'/2.,4!,$!,$%,B,%1#"!"&*#"!#1-.&/,-,'2>!6,-.&1-!6.,*.!-.'!!

4/&3"':!6,""!$'B'/!3'!2&"B'%!#$%!6.,*.!,2!#!4/'E/'H1,2,-'!5&/!#%%/'22,$+!!

-.'!&-.'/!,221'2(

!*

supply for $ of land $ ready $ $ and$ suitable $ $ house $ build$$ ing is considerably increased. $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Sir from $ Markâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s $ $ report $ also quotes $ $ the $ GLA report from the Homes for Londoners Board $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ of 13th June 2017. This carries the clear conclusion that â&#x20AC;&#x153;There is no indication that if all overseas

234)%5)6'""-)7"$/) $8-!),-)9%-!%-),() 8.',:+$/+'8$)$8-!

%%#

;4)%5)6'""-)7"$/)) $8-!),-)9%-!%-)) ,().%$5):%+'("(

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ www.planninginlondon.com $ $ $ $ $ $ $

)

)

&!#

$ $ $

$

$

$

$

$

??4)%5)9%-!%-@()6'""-) 7"$/),()&+*$,:)8::"(() $8-!)%')$8-!)/A8/)A8() 8-)"-#,'%-B"-/8$) $ $ $ $ !"(,.-8/,%-) <24)%5)$8-!),-)9%-!%-) ,()=.'""->)*+/)%-$1) ??4),()!"(,.-8/"!))

8()6'""-)7"$/ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$

$

$ $$

buyers disappeared tomorrow house prices would become more affordable for Londoners.â&#x20AC;?

(The same Board also reported to GLA in November 2017 after Sir Markâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s paper. The draft London Housing Strategy, which takes account of these discussions and the recommendations of the Homes for Londoners sub-groups, was published on 6 September 2017).

Sir Markâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s report analyses the Obstacles to Housebuilding as: â&#x20AC;&#x153;The principal reason why the supply of new $ $ $ has $not matched $ homes rising demand is that the supply of land for housing has been artificially restricted. To be developed for housing land must meet four tests: 1 It is owned by a developer or capable of being bought by a developer.

2 It is in a condition that can be built on, and the necessary infrastructure is in place or will be in place in a timely manner.

3 It has or is likely to have the necessary planning permission. >>>

Issue 104 January-March 2018

37

BRIEFING | LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM

>>> 4 The housing is capable of being sold at price that will yield an adequate return to a developer.

Each of these aspects can be problematic, and each carries with it a degree of uncertainty and therefore risk.

This is then examined as a worked example: The starting point is identification of land and an initial assessment of the sales value of the houses that can be built on that land. A calculation has to be made of build costs, other costs such as the cost of the capital used to purchase the land and finance the construction, marketing costs, planning fees etc, and then allowance made for planning obligations – broadly speaking payment of the Community Infrastructure Levy and “Section 106” requirements that cover local infrastructure, social housing, employment schemes etc.

The developer will expect a return on capital and seek a margin of around 15 per cent of the sale price. The maximum price that can be paid for the land is therefore a residual. The table below illustrates, in a very simplified form, a typical calculation at the plot level.

In effect, the land price is the residual, and is determined not in isolation but rather by the relationship between the expected selling price and total costs incurred by the developer.

So in the example above, other thing being equal a £100,000 increase in the expected sale price would lead to an increase in the price the developer was willing to pay for the land from £175,000 a plot to nearer £275,000.

It needs to be recognised that not all house builders/developers follow the same model.

Some specialise in land assembly, master planning, obtaining planning permission etc and then selling part or all of a site “oven ready” to companies that specialise in building houses rather than in development. This applies particularly to very large sites where

a developer would not wish to concentrate risk.

There are companies that specialise in identifying potential sites and securing outline planning permission only.

This is further elaborated in the complete report which is downloadable from Housing and Finance Institute website http://www.thehfi.com The conclusions to increase house building are summarised a 1 Need for an honest debate, based on evidence not assertion. Refutable arguments are also considered).

2 A combination of more land being made available for house building and higher densities.

3 To simplify the section 106 viability assessment process.

4 To change radically the planning system such that the bias against development is significantly reduced. This requires changes in respect of the role of elected members and planning departments.

Discussion Sir Mark explained that his Report is aimed at policy makers.

Sir Mark Boleat Chairs an Academy school in Islington. Teachers can’t afford to live near where they work. He does not believe it is impossible to deliver the number of homes needed.

He is a City of London Corporation Councillor and Deputy Chairman of the City of London Policy and Resources Committee and Chairman of Link Scheme Ltd. He was Chairman of the Policy and Resources Committee from May 2012 to May 2017 His career includes BSA, then Council of Mortgage Lenders, then Circle 33, Countryside Properties and he is a member of the Conservative think tank the Bow Group.

His report is a polemic, based on evidence.

Some key points he made in introducing the topic

included: The cost of housing relative to incomes is a major problem for young people, and thus for the competitiveness of the economy.

Not a land shortage; not fault of developers Objectors can cause delay and costs Utilities are a problem - BT and water - can cause delays Every planning committee has speakers against

38

Planning in London

the scheme; those who are not well-housed don’t speak. So Sir Mark is a strong supporter of the YIMBY movement.

Sir Mark thought that some LPAs are well organised (e.g. Ealing) where planning is well joined up with other departments; many are not.

Haringey is an example of what not to do.

Amit Malhotra of Telford Homes said that

www.planninginlondon.com

deliver 70-1000 home scheme in zones 2-6 and in London only. Telford aim for 35 per cent affordable housing on all their schemes, or if less than this they provide other mixed uses of community benefit, such as a schools etc. He expressed unhappiness that planning decisions are slow, so many consultants are required; Commenting Sir Mark believed the problem is local authorities and that they could be a lot more

efficient.

Rosemary Jenkins of the London Borough of Islington believes that the planning system should be fair and that planning officers at Islington are – and this is part of the reason for applications taking a long time – they have to give all applications equal consideration. She thought that CIL and 106 are seen as draining but the profitability of developers is sizeable and shareholders are very happy. >>>

Issue 104 January-March 2018

39

BRIEFING | LONDON PLANNING &

There was a discussion of the discrepancy between housing permissions and build out rates.

The Chairman asked how is the statistical analysis of this undertaken, how are ‘unused planning permissions’ calculated. Does it include for repeatapplications on the same site for example or Section 73 permissions?

The Boleat report considers that Viability distracts resources away from the core planning issues. The Chairman said that one solution could be to introduce variable clawback solutions or contributions based on Outcomes rather than prior assessments. (This can be done through legal agreement if the applicant is willing).

Most land is not land-banked by developers. It is held by institutional investors.

John Lett, formerly of GLA, said that the white paper does acknowledge that lack of supply cannot just be due to failure of the planning system.

He thought that the large sites like opportunity areas are too big for market absorption.

Riette Oosthuizen thought that planning officers have to act more professionally than is increasingly the case.

Brian Waters, amplifying this advocated looking at the Janice Morphet study, notably the section on Croydon’s housebuilding company in particular.

Planning Education is part of the problem. No funding for LPA planners.

Boleat: big developers don’t want a liberalised planning system. It’s the last thing they need.

Duncan Bowie: piggybacking social housing on the back of private developments only worked at all when there was lots of public subsidy; on its own it does not work. There needs to be more public control of land prices so we can get the land cheaply enough to build affordable homes. Now we have a viability-led system which doesn’t work.

John Lett agreed. (Quite how this works in a market economy was not explained).

Riette: developers have had very bad experiences with some (not all) planners, some being paralysed by fear of senior officers or by design review panels…

Rosemary: we take great care to brief ward councillors on applications long before they reach committee, so that local micro-politics can be sorted out in good time.

Michael Coupe: advises reading Morphet and Clifford on LA housing companies and he says that there should be a return to pre-application discussions.

Brian: the survey of consultant architects by the ACA shows immense dissatisfaction with preapp discussions because fees are too high on small projects and often see the wrong officers; not joined-up enough with other departments and authorities fail to respect the contracts they com-

40

Planning in London

mit to in terms of cross departmental involvement and meeting requited timetables.

DISCUSSION TOPIC 2: draft new London Plan KEY POINTS: Density and the matrix; replacement by “design" No green belt More flexibility on affordability More protection of office and workspace affordability Loss of social infrastructure Backing shared housing Small sites and small builders, presumption in favour of them <25 dwellings, <0.25ha removing needs for lifts for upper floor of small schemes 50 per cent affordable a great target; and 35 per cent threshold.

Duncan Bowie: this is a new plan, not a revision.

John Lett: yes. Hard to do it because big changes would require re-starting the whole process. Past mayors have promised early alterations as a way round that.

Approach to this plan was to be on “people”. Boris started with a bit of ”quality” and then mega-growth added later; this plan has the growth, but this time it’s “good growth”. Adoption expected late 2019.

An HTA planner reported great tensions with some outer boroughs about their targets and industrial land.

A summary re housing by HTA and an informed commentary by Duncan Bowie follow.

HTA provides the following summary of the Draft London Plan Published in December 2017 “The Draft London Plan (December 2017) was published last week for consultation. The London Plan sets out the strategic policies that guide development in London. The Draft Plan sets out new and amended policies that will form a blueprint for future development and sustainable, inclusive growth of the capital. The content within it has fundamental implications for our work. For now, though the Draft Plan will be a material consideration, due to the early stage it is at, its draft policies will carry little weight, until a further consultation round in 2018. The draft policies are also not yet finalised, and so may be subject to change.

However, it is likely we will start to slowly see some of the new approaches and expectations starting to influence the approach of developers and decisionmakers This note sets out a summary of the likely implications for regeneration schemes and development of housing and mixed-use schemes as a result of the draft policies. The Mayor’s aspirations as represented by these draft policies must also be understood in conjunction with the Affordable Housing and Viability SPG that was published earlier this year, making clear his position on the delivery of affordable housing as a strategic priority. (Our briefing note on this SPG can be found at http://

of the final New London Plan in Autumn 2019.

2 Summary of Key Implications 2.1 Strategic Housing Targets As with previous versions of the plan, the Mayor has set out new total annualised housing targets over the next 10 years for London boroughs. The plan sets a strategic target to deliver 64,935 homes across London per annum. This is significantly increased from the current target of 42,389 homes per annum set out within the current London Plan. Also of note is the ambition to provide significantly more homes within Outer London, with significant increases in housing targets for these boroughs ranging from around 1,200 homes per annum to 2,000 homes, with increases of up to 320 per cent in Merton.

By contrast, housing targets for Inner London Boroughs have remained relatively similar to the current targets, with housing targets even decreased in a select few boroughs: Islington, Tower Hamlets, Hackney, and Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.

bit.ly/2zJmcV1.)

1.1 London Plan Timetable Consultation on the Draft London Plan will take place for a period of 3 months, commencing on 1 December 2017, and will close on 2 March 2018.

An examination in public is expected to take place in Autumn 2018, with eventual publication Fig 4.1 - 10 year housing target for net completions

www.planninginlondon.com

2.2 Delivery of Housing on Small Sites In conjunction with the emphasis on housing delivery in Outer London boroughs and in recognition of the distinct challenges this raises, the Draft Plan introduces a new ‘presumption in favour of small housing developments’ in Draft Policy H2. Small sites are considered to be those which delivery up to 25 homes, or are up to 0.25ha. The focus on small sites is also to assist

small and medium scale builders to diversify the players contributing to the supply of housing across London, presumably with the ultimate goal of boosting overall housing delivery.

The Draft Plan sets out a range of measures intended to encourage delivery of small sites. These include: • Not requiring on-site delivery of affordable housing on schemes of 10 homes or fewer, but allow off-site contribution as an alternative; • Allowing new build homes on small sites above ground floor level to conform to Part M4(1) only, removing the need to provide expensive and space hungry lift cores even on the smallest of development.

Anticipating the possible resistance to this proposal from boroughs, the Draft Plan sets out precise housing targets for the delivery of homes on small sites specifically, and breaks this down to borough level. This will be the primary means through which small site housing delivery is encouraged, and will enable measurement against the targets to hold individual boroughs to account. The Draft Plan also encourages boroughs to introduce area-wide design codes to encourage higher densities on small housing developments, as well as increasing planning certainty on these types of sites by allocating appropriate sites and listing these on the brownfield register, and granting Permission in Principle on specific sites, or preparing Local Development Orders.

2.3 Delivery of Affordable Housing As expected the Draft Plan repeats the Mayor’s emphasis on the delivery of ‘genuinely’ affordable homes across London. The Draft Plan continues the ‘threshold approach’ introduced by the Affordable Housing and Viability SPG earlier this year, setting the initial thresholds at a minimum of 35 per cent affordable housing on all sites, increasing to 50 per cent on public sector land or relevant industrial sites. The level at which the thresholds are set is likely to be reviewed in 2021. The Draft Plan sets an eventual strategic aim of 50 per cent of all new homes to be affordable.

The tenure split remains as per the Affordable Housing and Viability SPG published earlier this year (i.e. 30 per cent low cost rented homes such as social rent and affordable rent, 30 per cent intermediate products, including London Living Rent and London Shared Ownership, with the remaining 40 per cent to be determined by the relevant borough), but with the clarification that it is assumed the remaining 40 per cent will focus on low cost rented homes.

To achieve the strategic target of delivering 50 per cent affordable homes, specific measures are proposed including the proposal for affordable housing providers, public sector land[owners, and strategic partners to enter into agreements with >>>

Issue 104 January-March 2018

41

BRIEFING | LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM/ DUNCAN BOWIE

>>> the Mayor to deliver a set level of affordable housing across their portfolio. For affordable housing providers and public sector land this is proposed at 50 per cent, whilst it is proposed at 60 per cent for other strategic partners. Taking a portfolio approach could have fundamental implications for where the delivery of affordable homes comes forward.

2.4 Housing Mix The Draft Plan recommends that prescriptive housing mix targets for market and intermediate housing are removed from borough’s development plans. If this recommendation makes it into the final plan it could allow more scope for individual developers to put forward housing mixes based on their own market research, and presumably has the goal of allowing proposed housing mixes to respond more readily to changing market demands over time. However, it recommends that schemes consisting of mainly 1 bedroom homes should still be resisted.

2.5 Density As has been expected for some time, the density matrix has been scrapped. Instead, it will be expected that schemes delivering housing proposed over certain thresholds, dependent on the site’s PTAL[1], will be accompanied by a management plan. However, the Draft Plan makes clear that ‘the higher the density of a development, the greater the level of scrutiny that is required of its design, particularly the qualitative aspects.’ Despite removal of the matrix, the significant emphasis on measures of density in recent years will continue, with a range of new density measurements introduced[2] presumably with the aim of assessing density in a more consistent manner, particularly on larger sites.

2.6 Design The Draft Plan also places significant emphasis on design, comprising a total of 13 key policies on the issue. Among these are steps to deliver ‘high quality design’, maintaining design quality through to a project’s completion and ensuring ‘local planning authorities using architect retention clauses in legal agreements where appropriate.’ The Draft Plan also provides guidance for making architecture more inclusive and accessible.

2.7 Car Parking The Mayor’s agenda to improve air quality is played out in part through revised car parking standards in different locations, which will of course also have implications for the ability of schemes to optimise housing density. There is continued support for car-free development,

42

Planning in London

including assuming car-free development as the starting point for all schemes in PTAL 5-6 areas, as well as PTAL4 areas in Inner London or Metropolitan or Major Town Centres. The maximum level of car parking provision expected will be up to 1.5 car parking spaces, only in the least accessible areas of PTAL 0-1 in Outer London; even in PTAL 0-1 areas in Inner London the expected car parking levels will be half of this.

In addition, it seems there will be significantly reduced levels of designated disabled persons parking bays expected, at a level of 1 space for 3 per cent of dwellings.

2.9 Cycle Parking The proposed cycle parking standards for housing will remain broadly similar, though the expected cycle parking provision for 1 bedroom homes will rise to 1.5 cycle parking spaces per dwelling. Though the change may seem minimal, in large-scale schemes, or regeneration areas in particular this could represent a significant increase in the proportion of land-take required for cycle parking, particular in central locations with a high proportion of 1 bedroom homes planned. This will also have implications for the design quality that can be achieved on particularly high density schemes, where striking a balance between provision of adequate cycle parking, and creation of lively active frontages facing onto public streets and spaces can already be a challenge.

The Mayor has also set out his intention to work with boroughs to introduced higher cycle parking standards in defined areas such as Mini

Hollands, Liveable Neighbourhood or Opportunity Areas, through the use of SPDs where appropriate.

2.10 Build to Rent There is continued recognition of the distinct economics of the build to rent development model and support for its delivery. The Draft Plan provides clarification on what will be considered to constitute Build to Rent, and therefore would be assessed against Build to Rent policies; the criteria includes a minimum threshold of 50 units, as well as that the homes are held as Build to Rent for at least 15 years under covenant, as well as around tenancy lengths, and management arrangements.

A threshold level of affordable housing has been introduced to provide an opportunity for Built to Rent schemes to take advantage of the Fast Track Route offered to Build for Sale schemes. In order for build to rent schemes to benefit from the ‘fast-track approach’ they must deliver a minimum of 35 per cent affordable housing comprised of at least 30 per cent London Living Rent, with the rest to be at discounts below market level, as agreed with the local authority. Schemes that qualify for the Fast Track Route will not need to provide a full viability assessment but will be subject the 15-year covenant and clawback given the Build to Rent policy approach to affordable housing.

2.11 Other Residential Accommodation 2.11.1. Older Person’s Housing Policy H15 provides clarity on what types of older persons housing will be considered use class C3 or C2 - Sheltered accommodation and extra care accommodation is considered as

BRIEFING | LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM/ DUNCAN BOWIE

being in Use Class C3. Residential nursing care accommodation is considered as being in Use Class C2 Annual borough benchmarks are set out in the plan for C3 class older persons housing.

2.11.2. Student Accommodation Policy H17 on purpose built student accommodation includes a requirement for 35 per cent of accommodation to be secured as affordable, which would need to be equal to or below 55 per cent of the maximum income that a student could receive from the Government’s maintenance loan for that academic year. It also sets a strategic target of 3500 bed spaces per annum across London.

2.12 Fire Safety In the aftermath of the tragic events at Grenfell earlier this year a new draft policy (Policy D11) is introduced requiring specific information to be submitted in a fire statement alongside all major applications to ensure fire safety. [RO2] 3 What do HTA think about the Draft Plan?

3.1 Increased Affordable Housing Delivery Finding a mechanism to increase the delivery of affordable housing is essential if we want to build a successful future for London but the latest Annual Monitoring Report published by the GLA confirms that the viability led approach of the past three years has produce affordable housing at an average of just 24 per cent of conventional housing supply. Measures set in place by the GLA to make viability assessment more transparent is a very positive step in gaining the support for development from local communities and it seems likely that once the affordable housing requirements become established the impact will feed through to reduced land values. But for such a significant increase to happen without a short term drop in delivery, we expect there will need to be a significant increase in the grant available from the GLA, particularly if we are to see an increase in London Affordable Rent.

3.2 Increasing Overall Supply through Housing Delivery on Small Sites We are hugely encouraged by the focus on small sites within the new London Plan. We have long campaigned in terms of the contribution that could be made by small sites - even gardens within Outer London through our Supurbia work, so this the presumption in favour of small sites is a welcome change. In particular it is encouraging that local authorities are encouraged to develop design codes to ensure that suburban areas could intensify in a controlled fashion.

HTA Design LLP have demonstrated through their work on Supurbia that there is latent potential to

www.planninginlondon.com

deliver up to 700,000 additional homes in the Outer London suburbs on land that is simply not developed at sustainable densities. As such, we fully support the Mayor’s notion that large amounts of Green Belt do not need to be released to facilitate London’s growth and housing need. However, there are left over portions of green belt land within London that have become surrounded with transport infrastructure and other uses, that offer little biodiversity value and no access to green spaces for people, and it is important that these portions of land do not get protected at all cost. It is of utmost importance to very carefully approach what type of interventions would support healthy outcomes for London’s residents: as London’s existing fabric increases in density, we need to ensure accessibility for everyone to healthy, good quality green spaces.

3.3 Good Growth and Good Design The continued emphasis on good design and good growth are welcomed. The move away from the density matrix to much more site specific accessibility consideration in lieu of density makes a lot of sense. We also support the introduction of management plans in instances where density levels proposed are high for PTAL ratings.

The requirement to include additional detail design information within a planning consent to secure high quality design is good but relies on having a resourced and skilled planning department to assess the additional detail and then ensure it is delivered. Whilst retaining the architect throughout is often a desirable mode of procurement, ensuring commitment from the developer in delivering the consented scheme is far more important, and for this the consented scheme must be realistic, deliverable and viable. It is hard to see how boroughs would be able to enforce retention of the architect through legal agreement.

The talents and experience of the Mayors Design Advocates would best be focused on review of strategic master-planning for wider city regions as there are already established design review panels such as DC CABE that have evolved to offer more productive design advice with a good understanding of the range of dynamics impacting on the development process. Many London borough councils have established their own Design Review Panels, which when properly managed in conjunction with a wellresourced planning department can add enormous value to the design of a project and provide additional support to democratically accountable local authorities. Creating a further review process could create conflicts in advice and increase the time required to get to a submission and potentially undermine the process of local planning. The Plan refers to good design and good planning being intrinsically linked – we fully agree with this statement – there is a balance. n

Duncan Bowie: provides this note on housing supply policies in draft London Plan Dec 2017

1 Housing density and sustainable residential quality.

The draft has amended the density policy by removing the density matrix. This in effect involves abandoning the key principle of Sustainable Residential Quality (SRQ) which has been a core principle of all versions of the plan since 2004 and derives from the pre-2000 work of the London Planning Advisory Committee (LPAC).

The concept of density ranges for development based on public transport access, the existing build form within a neighbourhood and the relationship to town and local centres (and social infrastructure and other services) has been replaced by the concept of design based scheme specific appraisals. This is in line with the new approach of design led planning, without the setting of clear design criteria which are actually measurable in relation to a specific development proposal.

Policy D6 sets thresholds above which applicants should submit a management plan.

These thresholds relate solely to PTALs (public transport access levels) and do not relate to any of the other components of the density matrix. They are set at the top of the ranges for smaller units in the central area: 110 units per hectare for PTAL 0-1; 240 units for PTAL 2-3, and 405 units per hectare for PTAL 4-6. Neither the content of such a management plan or the criteria for assessment are specified. It is significant that the thresholds refer to units per hectare and not habitable rooms per hectare.

This completely disregards the fact that the impact of development in terms of public transport and demand for services relates to the number of people occupying/ likely to occupy new homes and not the number of dwellings ( The density matrix was amended to focus on habitable rooms rather than dwellings in 2007).

The density policy, presented as ‘ design led’ makes no reference to policy requirements in terms of types of housing to be provided either in terms of built form, mix of units in terms of bedroom size (ie: whether studio flats or family sized homes) or affordability. There is in fact no recognition that there is a relationship between density of development and type of housing output (despite the evidence of monitoring of development output in recent years, which has shown a reduction in family sized homes and affordable homes as densities have risen). It is also significant that policy H12 on housing size mix refers to optimising the housing potential of sites, without specifying any dwelling mix targets at a London wide level (despite this being included in previous London Plans and/or Mayoral supplementary planning guidance). While there is a >>

Issue 104 January-March 2018

43

BRIEFING | LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM/ DUNCAN BOWIE

reference to resisting schemes which consist mainly of one person and/or one bed units (H12B), the focus of the overall policy is on smaller units rather than family sized units and in fact H12C says that boroughs should not set ‘ prescriptive’ dwelling mix guidance for market led schemes. The focus is clearly on enabling developers to build homes that are most profitable for them, rather than on meeting the requirements as identified in either the London-wide Strategic Housing Market assessment or in sub-regional or borough specific SHMAs. Moreover there is no recognition that the introduction of greater flexibility on density ( together with relatively weak affordable housing targets for specific schemes) has the impact of increasing land costs as landowners see the opportunity for greater financial returns, which in turn has a negative impact on housing affordability.

While the Plan seeks to introduce as a new vision, the concept of ‘Good Growth’, this appears to be rhetoric rather than substance given the proposed changes to density policy represent not just an abandonment of the core principle of ‘sustainable residential quality’ but in effect incentivise development which does not meet the housing needs of Londoners as identified in the new Strategic Housing Market Assessment and in fact adds further barriers to the ability of the boroughs as local planning authorities to respond appropriately to the full range of identified needs. The new policy in effect preferences the objective of maximising unit out-turn over other key planning policy objectives.

2 Housing Requirements and Housing Supply The new SHMA sets out the housing requirements of London at 66,000 per annum. This contrasts with the two estimates in the 2014 SHMA of 49,000 pa (based on meeting the housing need backlog over 20 years) and 62,000 pa (based on meeting the backlog over 10 years, the assumption used in the 2004 and 2009 SHMAs). It should be noted that the SHMA is based on secondary data as the last Londonwide housing needs survey was undertaken before the 2004 SHMA. The new SHMA, while generally applying the same methodology as the 2014 SHMA, however extends the period for meeting the backlog from 20 years to 25 years.

The SHMA concludes that 55,540 additional homes are needed each year to meet household population growth. With a total backlog of 208,621 identified, meeting this backlog over 25 years, produces an additional annual requirement of 8,761 giving a total requirement of 64,301. This is then adjusted to recognise the fact that some new homes are left vacant or used as second homes, to give an annual require-

44

Planning in London

ment of 65,878 (rounded up in the plan to 66,000). Applying a 20 year backlog clearance approach would take the annual requirement to 67,548; applying a 10 year requirement would take the requirement to 77,879. Previous government guidance was to assume backlog is met over 5 years. If this was applied to London, the annual housing requirement for the first 5 years of the plan would be 98,741, falling to 57,017 in the subsequent 5 year period on the basis that the backlog had been fully cleared in the first five years.

It can be seen from these calculations that the housing requirement is determined not just by assumptions as to population growth and an assessment of the growth in new households (which needs to assume average household size required for additional housing) but also the timescale assumed for meeting the backlog. As the plan’s new supply targets are set for 10 years, there is a case for returning to the 2004 Plan assumption that the backlog be met within the plan period, which would give an annual requirement of approximately 78,000 compared with the 66,000 assumed. This is significant as given the annual housing target proposed is 65,000, this would increase the annual supply supply/ requirement deficit from 1,000 a year to 12,000 a year – or over the 10 year period from 10,000 households to 120,000 households. This is important in terms of the relationship between London and the Home Counties, for by suppressing the deficit, the Plan implies that London can meet ( or be very close to meeting) its housing requirements within the London area, whereas a more consistent methodological approach demonstrates that this is not possible, and that there would be an imposed exporting of about 12,000 households from London, which would impact mainly on the Home Counties districts.

The SHMA also gives bedroom size requirements: 1 bed 36,335 (55 per cent of total) 2 bed 10,788 (16 per cent of total) 3 bed 8,971 (14 per cent of total) 4 bed and larger 8,783 ( 15 per cent of total) This indicates a significant shift from the 2013 SHMA, which had 1 beds as 34 per cent of the total; 2beds at 18 per cent; 3 beds at 26 per cent and 4 beds and larger at 22 per cent. The proportionate requirement for 3 bed or larger properties appears to have fallen from 48 per cent of the total to only 29 per cent. This is a significant shift which is not fully explained in the SHMA. The new housing supply target of 65,000 a year, derived from the SHLAA assumes, development at significantly higher densities than assumed in the 2014 SHLAA. In previous SHLAAs, new housing sites (ie: those without planning consents or with-

out capacity estimates in Local Plans) were assessed for capacity in relation to the mid-point in the applicable density range in the London Plan.

The new SHMA explicitly assumes densities towards the top of the applicable range (for example 355 dwellings per hectare (dph) in the highest range of 140-405 for schemes in the central area with PTAL of 4-6) or 65 dph in the lowest range of 35-75 for schemes with PTAL of 0-1 in suburban areas. It then assumes a further uplift to top of the applicable range in town centres and a further uplift significantly above the top of the range in Opportunity Areas. The justification given is that in practice consented schemes in Opportunity Areas have been at these density levels. In effect the SHLAA is replacing capacity estimates based on the SRQ principles by capacity estimates which reflect that in practice density policies have been breached. So, the assumptions on which housing targets are based ae in effect set to reflect practice (which has generally not accorded with policy) rather than the actual policy. This reflects the abandonment of the principles of Sustainable Residential quality in favour of reinforcing (and legitimising) current trends in development. The housing targets set therefore have no regard to either the form or mix of homes to be built. The implication is that rather than increasing land supply for new housing, the targets rely on intensified use of identified land. This in accordance with the compact city assumption – that London’s housing needs can be met through intensification without any use of green belt land or reliance on any contribution from districts outside the London administrative boundary. It is significant that the SHLAA has no quantification of the hectarage of the housing sites identified relative to the hectarage identified in the 2014 SHLAA.

3. Affordable housing targets and application The SHMA gives annual tenure requirements as: 23,037 market homes (35 per cent of total) 11,869 intermediate homes (18 per cent of total) 30,972 low cost rent homes (47 per cent of total) Taking the two sub market categories together gives an ‘affordable housing’ requirement of 65 per cent of the total requirement.

As 78 per cent of the backlog is for lower rented accommodation, meeting the backlog over a shorter timescale than 25 years, would increase the proportion of new homes in the plan period which should be low cost rented homes. There is a strong argument for giving priority to meeting the most acute needs, though this factor does not seem to be considered in the plan.

The affordable housing targets in the plan at policy H7 are:

Market 50 per cent Intermediate (London living rent and shared ownership) 15 per cent Low cost rent 15 per cent Affordable housing to be determined by borough 20 per cent.

The disaggregation of affordable housing targets is taken from the Mayor’s Housing Strategy which was published in advance of the completion of the SHMA. The targets therefore appear to be related to the current affordable housing funding regime, rather than the assessment of housing requirements in the SHMA. The overall 50 per cent affordable housing target falls short of the 65 per cent requirement. The minimum target for social rented housing of 15 per cent is far short of the estimated requirement of 47 per cent, and even if all 33 local planning authorities used all of the 20 per cent discretionary element for low cost rent, the aggregate would at 35 per cent still fall far short of the 47 per cent requirement. Surely the targets in the plan should be based on the SHMA rather than on the current funding regime and as a strategic planning authority the Mayor should set London-wide targets rather than leave so much discretion to individual planning authorities who will have little if any regard to needs presented outside their own authority’s area.

The Plan has no policies on how individual boroughs should set affordable housing targets (and targets for different sub-categories of sub-market housing) within their Local Plans. There is no replacement for policy 3.11B, C and D in the 2016 Plan. This is a significant deficiency. The new approach to affordable housing focuses on assessment of individual development proposals with a focus on viability assessments rather than on assessment against London-wide or borough-wide targets. This approach would allow a borough either to drop any specific borough wide affordable housing target or to amend, including reduce its current Plan targets.

The delivery of the 50 per cent affordable housing target is problematic. In previous versions of the London Plans, policies have required each application referred to the mayor to be assessed in relation to the London Plan target – 50 per cent in the 2004 and 2008 Plans; 40 per cent in the 2011 and 2016.

Policy H6 in the new plan, following the recent GLA affordable housing and viability SPG, proposes that for private sector led schemes without grant, a 35 per cent affordable housing output would be acceptable and such a scheme would be exempt from a viability assessment. Neither the policy or SPG specify a minimum proportion of low cost rented housing within such a scheme. Policy H6B proposes a 50 per cent affordable housing target on public sector land and a 50 per cent target on sites, which are within Strategic Industrial Locations and

www.planninginlondon.com

Locally Significant Industrial sites (other policies seek to protect industrial floorspace, so this assumes higher proportions of affordable on mixed use sites, with employment uses retained through intensification). There is an assumption that sites with Mayoral grant will provide at least 50 per cent affordable housing, but again no minimum proportion for low cost rented housing. It is unclear how the aggregation of these different targets will be a London-wide affordable housing outturn of 50 per cent. This could only be achieved if a significant proportion of grant funded schemes achieved affordable housing outputs of at least 65 per cent - this seems unlikely given current funding regimes and limits on grant per home. Moreover, given both funding regimes and targets, the proportion of social rented homes will be far below the proportionate requirement of 47 per cent of total net new supply identified in the SHMA and possibly below the minimum 15 per cent target set.

4. Definitions of affordable housing The Plan policies defining the affordability of different categories of sub-market housing are unsatisfactory. This is a complex issue given Government policies state that any housing for sale at a price below 80 per cent of market value and for rent at below 80 per cent market rent is considered to be affordable in planning terms and consequently contributing to any affordable housing target set in a Local Plan. The previous Mayor of London was required to remove the separate definition of social rent from the 2011 London Plan. However the Government now recognises the need for new social rented housing ( including council housing) and the opportunity to restate a satisfactory income-related definition of social rented housing should not be lost, as it would now be difficult for the Government to object to this.

Para 4.74 on London Affordable Rent ( put forward as a new form of low-cost rent) , refers to rent levels well below the Government’s definition of ‘ affordable rent’ (which is at up to 80 per cent market rent) ‘ based on traditional social rents’ and then refers to the Mayor’s Affordable Homes Programme 2016-21. This is not however a statutory planning document. Moreover, this programme terminates in 2021 at which point a new programme will be established, with potentially new funding criteria, whereas the new Plan is to extend to 2041. The term ’traditional social rent’ is not defined within the Plan and there is no reference to rent levels in relation to household income levels. The solution to this problem is to restate the definition of social rent housing costs (rents and service charges) included in the 2004 and 2008 London Plans as 30 per cent of net incomes for the lowest quartile of households. This will ensure schemes aiming to pro-

vide low cost rent units, whether or not funded from the Mayor’s Affordable Homes Programme, can be assessed as to whether or not they meet explicit affordability criteria. This is important given some schemes may be provided directly by boroughs or indirectly through s106 agreements without grant from the Mayor’s programme.

Para 4.7.5 refers to London Living rent aimed at households on middle incomes. No rent levels are stated. Para 4.7.8 recognises that this is an ‘intermediate’ housing product and states that this is aimed at households with incomes up to £80,000 a year.

Para 4.79 referred to an assumption of 40 per cent of net average income for intermediate housing products, though the mechanism for assessing proposals for specific schemes is unclear. The financial viability appraisal system must reintroduce this affordability assessment mechanism.

Paras 4.7.6 and 4.7.8 refer to London Shared Ownership. This is based on an income limit of £90,000, which will also apply to other forms of intermediate housing products such as discounted market sale. The previous distinction in upper limits between family sized homes and smaller homes has been dropped. While para 4.79 encourages boroughs ‘to ensure that intermediate provision provides for households with a range of incomes below the upper limit’ to ensure this objective is achieved. it is necessary to reintroduce the requirement (as in the 2008 Plan) that half of provision should be for households below a specified mid-point in the income range (which as at February was £35,600, but which now would be somewhat higher). As in previous years the income limits for different types of intermediate provision will be reviewed on an annual basis through the annual monitoring report.

It would be helpful if the Plan set out as a footnote the methodology for such reviews, to give an assurance that affordability in relation to household incomes will not worsen over the full plan period. n

Next meeting of the London Planning & Development Forum will be jointly with the National Planning Forum and the Cambridge University Land Society Our annual afternoon planning update will be from 1.30pm on Tuesday 20th March 2018 at Dentons, One Fleet Place – our hosts and sponsors for the event. Drinks will follow!

Details and bookings at www.culandsociety.com

Issue 104 January-March 2018

45

GOOD GROWTH FOR LONDON’S HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT | DAVID ENGLISH

Good Growth for London’s historic environment With the publication of a new draft London Plan built around the concept of ‘Good Growth’, Historic England are setting out the key role that heritage can and should play in shaping London’s future growth, writes David English

David English is Historic Places Principal on the London Planning Group at Historic England

46

Planning in London

Our recently published report Translating Good Growth for London’s Historic Environment makes the compelling case that the active management of London’s historic environment is fundamental to good growth. It also argues that in order for the concept of good growth, and the new London Plan, to align with the NPPF’s principles of sustainable development, heritage needs to be seen as a strength and cross-cutting policy priority.

Our report celebrates a small selection of London’s many heritage success stories. These illustrate how heritage-led regeneration is at the heart of good growth and promote the public value of the historic environment. Given the breadth and diversity of London’s heritage, Historic England strongly advocates that the new London Plan should actively embrace the opportunities heritage presents. This will ensure that Londoners get the best type of growth, which retains and reinforces what makes the city unique and so special to them and people from around the world.

Historic England commissioned ARUP to produce our good growth report following the release of the Mayor’s A City for All Londoners (2016), which we responded to with our Keep it London publication. Keep it London drew on a series of background evidence reports that explored the effectiveness of the

existing London Plan heritage policies, characterisation and the relationship between historic character and density that we produced as an aid to the Mayor and others interested in London’s future. Among its recommendations was the need for Historic England to help frame the strategic debate around London’s future growth, due to the great value of heritage to Londoners.

The concept of good growth is in A City for All Londoners, and previously had been a key theme in the series of reports produced by the Mayor’s Design Advisory Group (MDAG).

However, despite good growth being described as a series of principles, no clear definition was provided. Likewise, while MDAG had considered the idea of ‘London-ness’ and the need to reinforce distinctive local character, they too had not engaged with the growth opportunities that heritage creates.

This lack of clarity provided us with an opportunity to enter and add value to the public debate, which has since expanded with the Mayor’s Good Growth by Design programme.

So how does heritage contribute to good growth? Drawing on the themes set out by MDAG and the Mayor, the report focused on three areas where heritage makes a particular contribution to good growth. These are the role that heritage plays:

LEFT: Interior of Fitzrovia Chapel

• in defining London’s character and Londoners’ identity; • as an inherent part of successful change; and, • by adding value to the development process.

Camden Town, Covent Garden, Brixton, Green Lanes, Chelsea, Bethnal Green… the list of London’s diverse neighbourhoods known the world over, is as long as it is rich. Similarly, with four UNESCO World Heritage Sites, and landmarks like St Paul’s Cathedral, London is home to internationally significant buildings and places that help define the identity of our city and its residents. This heritage underpins ‘London-ness’; what makes our city unique and special. The fundamental contribution that heritage makes to the identity of places, and the value that this creates, is visible in the way that the U+I are developing the Old Vinyl Factory in Hayes. By embracing the industrial heritage of the former EMI factory on the site, the developer has created a distinctive brand that is drawing in new businesses, residents and students to the area.

Similarly in Westminster, the redevelopment of the Middlesex Hospital maintained and reinforced heritage significance, while delivering almost three hundred new homes and much needed office space. By retaining and celebrating both listed buildings and characterful unlisted buildings, and by carefully relating the new buildings to the historic street layout, the development has added to Fitzrovia’s sense of place. The restoration of the Grade II* listed chapel at the heart of the site, a space of great beauty, highly significant to former patients, their families and medical staff, preserves and enhances a unique link to the site’s previous use and its special significance in many peoples’ personal histories.

The case studies all illustrate how investing in heritage delivers dividends. This value is economic and social, creating homes and supporting jobs, as well as renewing the beautiful, charming and interesting places and buildings that define London. The redevelopment of the markets in Kingston and

www.planninginlondon.com

Greenwich town centres, with new public realm and sensitive adaption of historic buildings, illustrate how good growth can deliver benefits in the most sensitive places. Now in huge demand by visitors and retailers, these markets are bringing life to the town centres and supporting large numbers of small businesses. The revitalised civic sporting facilities in Poplar, illustrate how heritage can support improved well-being and better quality of life for London’s local communities, as well as delivering affordable housing.

Actively managing London’s historic environment enables it to act as a catalyst for growth. There are things that heritage offers people that nothing else can, by changing the way that they look at things, places and themselves. The hugely successful redevelopment of Bankside Power Station illustrates the ability of heritage to amplify the interest of schemes for the public. Despite not being statutorily listed the sensitive approach to the transformation of the power station into a gallery, and its recently completed extension, have supported the wider regeneration of Bankside and made Tate Modern an attraction of choice for 6.4m visitors in 2014.

At the other end of the scale, the imaginative adaption of the Thrale Almshouses in Lambeth created 17 new and refurbished homes at affordable prices for women over the age of 60. As well as providing specialist housing that will contribute to meeting the needs of London’s aging population, the sensitive design increased the sense of security and was of such quality that a nearby conservation area was expanded to include the development. This virtuous circle, creating value by drawing on what is special about existing buildings when considering adaptations, puts heritage at the centre of the development process. All fifteen case studies illustrate how London’s architects, planners and designers successfully do this time and again, creatively conserving existing buildings and places, retaining what makes them special and adapting them to be fit >>>

Issue 104 January-March 2018

47

GOOD GROWTH FOR LONDONâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT | DAVID ENGLISH

RIGHT: Poplar Baths/Greenwich

>>>

RIGHT BELOW: Thrale Almshouses (Photo cred Robert Greshoff)

48

Planning in London

for purpose for the future.

Given the challenge posed by a rapidly expanding population and a finite supply of land, Historic England is keen to support the Mayor, the boroughs, developers, residents and all other stakeholders with an interest in London, to get the best

out of what we already have. While some types of development may bring risks to heritage, we believe the need to renew and densify parts of the city creates opportunities.

These are both to enhance all parts of Londonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s built environment, and also to engage with Londoners to identify the areas,

buildings, views, monuments etc. that matter to them.

Developing strong policies which promote the conservation and enjoyment of Londonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s heritage in the new London Plan will go a long way to ensuring that London has a positive heritage strategy. We therefore welcome Mayorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s direction of travel paper, and the positive messages about plan-led development, based on evidence, coming out of City Hall. Our good growth report is one of a series of research papers that Historic England has produced to support the new London Plan and a heritage strategy for London. Other research reports illustrate the public value of Londonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s archaeology, and the benefits, eco-

www.planninginlondon.com

nomic and social, of investing in Heritage at Risk. This work, along with our other data sets, archive resources and in-house experts, will inform the advice we will be providing on the different Mayoral strategies over the coming months. n

For more information on any of the above research (and our responses to consultations), and to access our report on good growth, please visit our website www.historicengland.org.uk For more information on Keep it London, Good Growth, and any of the other Historic England reports referenced above, please visit the Keep it London page of our website.

Issue 104 January-March 2018

49

SMALL SITES | PAUL TULLY AND PHILIP BUENO DE MESQUITA

An online resource for making small sites available for homes Paul Tully and Philip Bueno de Mesquita find themselves the acme of both national and city level government housing policy

Paul Tully and Philip Bueno de Mesquita are directors of Land Converter

50

Planning in London

In the last budget, the Chancellor pledged a further £1.5 billion on top of a previous £3 billion for the Home Building Fund, this time specifically for SME housebuilders. In addition, he said he would make available a £630 million fund to prepare small sites for development and ensured that councils delivered new housing smaller sites. These will provide opportunities to boost small scale development.” Brian Berry, Chief Executive of the Federation of Master Builders said: “the Chancellor has put small and medium-sized builders at the heart of ambitious plans to tackle the growing housing crisis. [He] appears to be putting his money where his mouth is.”

Then in the launch of the draft London Plan, the Mayor of London Sadiq Kahn placed a renewed emphasis on making small sites available for building, particularly to help make Inner London denser. It all sounds eminently sensible.

Encourage and create a full ecology of housebuilding rather than depending on the big housebuilders to address the needs of a country desperate for new housing; allow a hundred specialities to flourish. It was striking though how little consideration has been given as to why anyone would want to take on the big housebuilders and work the awkward sites with lower margins, let alone how?

Well, we know. We had already established ourselves as Landconverter and only latterly found ourselves as the acme of both national and city level government housing policy. Our previous experience is in the creative industries: Paul founded and ran the award-winning creative agency pd3 while Philip founded and ran the trainer brand Acupuncture. He’d built two renowned houses in central London; The Lost House in Kings Cross which was designed by Adjaye Associates and the Cube House in Clerkenwell. Together we thought that there was an opportunity to expand this niche; use prefabrication to help bring down costs and create something special.

So, we have experience running dynamic creative companies and we love great architecture. We looked around and even before the government got in on the act we were sure that there was an opportunity to marry some of those kooky but interesting urban spaces you often come on unexpectedly in the city with great new buildings. There was, we thought a chance to populate these sites with imaginative and intelligent design, and thereby create beautiful new homes within established communities. Of course, our approach is not going to solve the housing crisis on its own but then why beat ourselves up about that? What we are doing makes a contribution to that condition.

And what we are doing also makes a contribution to the

lives of our clients and to the city which we love. And while it may seem rather trivial to some, we are not alone. This outlook is likely to be the engine for many small developers who are also working at lower margins than the big house builders and aren’t interested in cramming as much as possible on to individual sites with multiple apartment buildings and are more interested in the craft of making and building. There is an ethical dimension to what they do, which involves working with architects we respect and making something that looks good. But obviously, that’s not the whole story. We also did our research.

As Noble Francis, Economics Director of the Construction Products points out big homebuilders are already getting big help. There is Help to Buy; the upcoming review of land banking and the introduction of the National Planning Policy Framework. As much support as can be reasonably be given is being given in that respect. He adds though: “Government feels the key area for further gains in increasing house building further is the SMEs, who have been decimated by the last two recessions,” he says. According to Francis, there were 12,215 SME house builders in Great Britain in 1988. In 2016, there were only 1,920.

Of course, those statistics might put many off. However, as the market picked up again we realised that there were opportunities for new developers. And new developers with a new skill set. We wondered what opportunities people with small pockets of land had to dispose of it? They had little chance, we realised, but to trust a local estate agent, which was a shot in the dark. We understand how people relate to new technologies and platforms. We built a website that laid out our proposition clearly and honestly, separating ourselves from the murkiness of other land dealers. We made sure we would be at the top of people’s searches to give when they were seeking to sell their plot and we embraced social media.

It isn’t rocket science but it is clear and it means everyone knows where they stand. So, potential vendors upload the details of the site that they wish to sell using an online form.

We work unpaid to make sure that any potential developments can make it through planning. Then once planning is agreed, the vendors receive 25 per cent of the final valuation

by The Modern House, we get another 25 per cent while the remaining half goes in construction and design. We also did a little bit of exploration and realised that we could make the proposition even more attractive by ensuring that the vendor avoids capital gains tax if the land is under half a hectare and part of their principle residence, although they must pay at the planning option stage.

This has been successful. We are already working on new projects in Forest Gate (a brownfield site) and gardens in Ealing and Sevenoaks. We were advised by our planning advisor that the Mayor’s expressed wish to allow develop in gardens is contrary to Government advice and ran counter to many London authorities which have their own policies resisting development on garden land. We are learning how complicated the fragmented landscape of planning is: how attitudes vary so much between national, city and local authority. Certainly, the new focus on entrepreneurial development is helpful. The mayor believes there is capacity for 24,500 homes a year on London’s small sites which are up to 0.25ha and capable of delivering 1-25 homes in the Draft Plan. These are in fact the main new element in the mayor’s determination to ‘increasing housing supply’.

When we asked her what effect the mayor’s advice might be, our planning advisor Carolyn Apcar said that “where a local authority has their own policies resisting such development I suspect it would only assist on appeal and IF the local authority concerned can be shown not to be meeting their target.” The mayor’s new sites should be included in brownfield registers, and some of them will be granted permission in principle. A presumption in favour of residential developments will also apply in certain circumstances – including, infilling, the densification of existing schemes in key areas.

We are watching with interest. However, in the meantime, in addition to buildings on site we have another five sites in the pipeline, and aim to have 10 developments on site this year.

We want to build, and we are working with four top practices to do so: Adjaye Associates, Faye Toogood, Carl Turner and Skene Catling de la Pēna. As we want to roll out the designs to

www.planninginlondon.com

as many people as possible we’ve asked them to create modular housing; be that at a structural level as it is with Carl’s designs or as Charlotte Skene Catling, an internal component around which different kinds of houses can be built.

For example, Carl Turner, has produced two concept houses for us one of which consists of a single storey, 1-2 bedroom dwelling, which we call a Cub House and the other a two storey, 2-3 bedroom dwelling, known as the Cube House. As he says, “these houses have been designed to provide an innovative solution to the demands of 21st century living while meeting the demands of London space standards, flexibly reacting to the imposed pressures of different sites, aiding efficient construction and allowing customisation to suit the requirements of client and planning authority.” This is what we are in the game to create and we hope to make them as affordable as possible.

Of course, we are new to this world. But then as the statistics above show, many different types of enterprises are needed to make up the shortfall in SMEs working in the housebuilding / development field. Steve Norris, the onetime mayoral candidate recently wrote: “what is the point of announcing grants to encourage small developers when one of the main reasons they cannot compete is that the planning system is so tortuous and expensive?”

We are only just coming to terms with this system but we know enough to know that what Norris says is true and this may need to be addressed. We aren’t moaning or complaining – just yet! - and we aren’t put off by the complexity of the situation. We began on this journey without government help and whilst we’ll take all the help we can get; we ask for nothing more than a good shot at building. n

ABOVE: Cube Haus by Carl Turner Architects

Issue 104 January-March 2018

51

w th

l * LO ia ff NG ec 5 o NNI Sp r ÂŁ PLA ffe de O e co

ith

N

The Design Companion for Planning and Placemaking Urban Design London Placemaking An essential primer to help those involved in planning secure higher standards of building, open space and neighbourhood design and the delivery of better places. This book provides up-to-date explanations, examples, top tips and practical advice to help the reader understand and apply national design policies and guidance.

Written by a team of experts overseen by Urban Design London, the contributions combine an impressive range of knowledge and expertise to set out a tried, tested and practical approach to delivering better urban places, not just in London but throughout the UK and abroad.

The book will be invaluable for planners, councillors, highway engineers and anyone involved in planning,

*When you order The Design Companion for Planning and Placemaking online

creating or changing places.

Offer valid until 31 December 2018. T&Câ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s apply

Order from ribabookshops.com ISBN 978 1 85946 748 0

ÂŁ30.00

AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES | TIM ARMITAGE

Autonomous vehicles: challenges, opportunities for London Tim Armitage explores the opportunities and challenges for the capital

Tim Armitage is Arup Project Director for UK Autodrive

Last month saw the Arup-led consortium, UK Autodrive, take to the streets of Coventry to hold the country’s largest trial and demonstration of autonomous and connected vehicles on public roads. Autonomous vehicles are on their way. So what do cities such as London need to be thinking of now?

The challenges of developing technology to automate the driving task should not be underestimated. Nor should the challenges of regulation and certification, and of preparing our cities to maximise the benefits of this disruptive new form of mobility. A future where all vehicles are fully autonomous is relatively easy to imagine; the film industry has given us glimpses of how that might look. Less clear, however, is the view of the world as we shift from manual driving to autonomous driving in the coming decade.

We are already rushing headlong into this ‘fog’ of mixed methods of controlling road vehicles. Vehicles with advanced driver assistance systems such as adaptive cruise control or lane assist are already widespread. The number of these vehicles will increase rapidly over the coming years as will their autonomous capability which will be motivated by consumer choice and insurance premiums.

The impact on cities such as London will be profound.

Imagine a scenario where a car can ‘drive’ into a city, negotiating with a city authority ‘system’ for a car park space which is then allocated to the vehicle. A development of this scenario may see the car being directed to an out-of-town car park. There the passengers will leave the car and travel the last mile by public transport or turn to some form of active travel such as walking or cycling. An alternative to these scenarios may see a car delivering its occupants to a programmed destination where they disembark and the vehicle then goes off to perform another service. These scenarios are not works of science fiction but are being demonstrated with prototype vehicles today.

These new capabilities will provide challenges to a city like London; a city with a complex and congested network of roads.

Careful consideration of the developments to come will be needed to avoid any negative impacts from the growth in connected and autonomous vehicles. However, the new forms of mobility will also offer opportunities, not only to manage the introduction of connected and autonomous vehicles into London’s urban realm, but also to harness the benefits they bring. So what does London need to do to prepare?

Challenges for London We are living at a time of unprecedented change that will affect the way we move within and between cities. The introduction of CAVs is only one amongst a group of develop-

www.planninginlondon.com

ments, which includes low carbon fuels, big data, the sharing economy, mobility as a service and more. All of these developments will combine to change the way in which we consume mobility services and the way in which London’s authorities will have to provide them.

The challenge for London is how to embrace the new technologies to enhance the way that the city functions, whilst managing the transition period from today into a truly low-carbon and digital future.

Opportunities A major international car company recently announced at an event in London that its future vehicles will be based around four pillars. They will be low carbon, connected, autonomous and shared. Many other manufacturers are heading in the same direction and these four attributes provide a good basis from which to consider the opportunities in future urban mobility.

Low Carbon vehicles will provide an immediate benefit in terms of the quality of London’s public realm. They will directly improve air quality in the urban environment and also contribute to a reduction in traffic noise, ultimately making a city a much nicer place for its citizens.

Together, a fleet of battery electric vehicles could act as an aid to managing the energy system in London helping to balance demand and control frequency at peak times. So called vehicleto-grid (V2G) technologies have the capability to remotely control when an electric vehicle is charged. Vehicles that can be charged when the general demand for energy is low, and in some cases return energy to the grid when demand is high, will contribute to an efficient energy system.

Connected vehicles will provide a rich source of data that >>>

Issue 104 January-March 2018

53

AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES | TIM ARMITAGE

>>> will be valuable to the city in understanding how its citizens and visitors move around the urban environment. Data analytics will provide real-time information on vehicle flows and traffic jams. The flow of information will be bi-directional, the city will be able to provide information on parking and drop-off places to visitors and will also be able to manage traffic flows by providing preferred routes to traffic negotiating the city streets.

The bulk availability of real traffic data from connected cars and the adoption of data analytics will allow transport planners to apply interventions to improve the flow of vehicles through the city.

Real-time traffic signals can be broadcast into the connected car, such technology will enable vehicles to negotiate the city in a more efficient way, reducing congestion and corresponding pollution from legacy internal combustion engine vehicles.

Autonomous vehicles have the potential to radically change the way in which both people and goods move around a city environment like London. Perhaps the most noticeable change will be a reduction in the number of car park spaces as cars are able to drop their occupants off at a destination then move without a driver to an out of town car park, or indeed to go to fulfil another journey or service. This valet parking will mean that there will be an increase in demand for drop-off points with a corresponding opportunity to re-purpose the space currently given over to parking.

New forms of autonomous transport will facilitate last mile journeys using on-demand low-speed autonomous vehicles that will operate in shared spaces. This will allow planners to restrict larger passenger and freight vehicles to the outskirts of cities, thereby improving the quality of the urban realm.

Shared ownership - vehicle ownership is changing, direct purchase has been losing popularity and vehicle lease models are becoming more common. This change is set against a backdrop of fewer young people learning to drive and ‘owning’ car.

Many reasons are cited for this change, with the two most common being the cost of insurance for young drivers and the acceptance of car ownership as a ‘right of passage’ amongst customers of the new millennium. These trends are especially apparent in cities like London where efficient forms of public transport are present in conjunction with car clubs and affordable taxis.

Connected and autonomous vehicles will become increasingly common in our towns and cities. The digital innovations which are enabling their development are beyond what we are used to in transport systems. Their introduction is being encouraged by our national government, an action which fuels the pace of innovation. These innovations will lead to the evolutionary development of current passenger and freight vehi-

54

Planning in London

cles (including busses) and will also lead to the revolutionary development of other forms of mobility such as the last mile ‘pods’ being demonstrated in Milton Keynes and Greenwich.

As traditional passenger cars become fully autonomous, moving from place to place independent of occupants, the value in personal ownership will decrease. This will almost certainly lead to the introduction of Mobility as a Service (MaaS), small examples of which are already appearing.

New business models will be needed as revenues from parking (£819m for English councils1) reduce as fewer parking spaces are need. London’s authorities and businesses will need to embrace the changes precipitated by connected and autonomous vehicles if they are to achieve the full benefit that they can bring. Perhaps the most exciting outcome will be that city planners will be able to start to design for the needs of people first and not for the needs of the car. The car is no longer king. n 1 Local Authority Parking Operations Revenue Outturn for England, RAC Foundation 2017 http://www.racfoundation.org/research/mobility/council-parking-revenue-inengland-2016-17

PD RIGHTS FOR OFFICES TO HOMES | NICK TAYLOR

Authorities’ growing concern at PD rights for offices to residential use Nick Taylor anticipates an increase in the number of London boroughs applying for Article 4 Directions to limit conversions providing lowcost homes

Nick Taylor is head of planning at Carter Jonas

Our annual survey of the largest English Local Planning Authorities reveals that nearly half think Permitted Development Rights (“PDR”) allowing conversion of offices to residential are a problem in their area, mainly because of concerns around the loss of jobs and impact on local economic growth. This is an increase from 40 per cent in 2016.

The figure rises to nearly 70 per cent across the 29 London boroughs included, a marked increase on last year’s result of 50 per cent. Interestingly, Wandsworth, Greenwich and Southwark have changed their position over the last year and are now reporting that pressures for office-to-residential conversion are now more of an issue facing the authority.

Notwithstanding the pressures, almost half of all English local authorities surveyed indicated that they will not yet consider introducing restrictions in the form of an Article 4 Direction, preferring to monitor market conditions and rely on evidence to support development plans to determine whether a formal policy response is necessary. In effect, they will be operating a ‘wait and see’ approach, with intervention required only where necessary which is the approach that the Government endorses.

However, when the inner London boroughs are analysed in isolation, the story is very different with half stating that they would introduce a Direction or seek to extend an existing Direction. This was largely because of concerns about loss of workspace, economic impacts and the market evidence that conversion of offices to residential is financially viable in those boroughs. In other words, the financial metrics are in place in these locations to support the change. Although this approach to constrain change would appear to be at odds with the view of the Government and its priority to utilise underused buildings, it is clear that authorities are concerned that the change is happening to office buildings where residential is a higher value and thereby impacting on the overall stock of office space.

The threat from these changes is acknowledged in the draft London Plan and the Mayor confirms that he supports councils to consult and introduce Article 4 Directions for the areas currently exempt in and around the Central Activities Zone (“CAZ”) and for geographically-defined parts of other existing and viable strategic and local office clusters. It will be interesting to monitor the success of the applications to extend these restrictions and we anticipate debate over the definition of strategic and local office clusters.

Why is PDR more of a concern for local authorities now than previously?

There is a combination of reasons, but we consider that fun-

www.planninginlondon.com

damentally it is because PDR is now a permanent fixture and for authorities, it now poses a threat over the medium to long-term. During the three-year trial period, it was not clear what would happen to a scheme that was not fully implemented or occupied by the end guidance. At that time, it was believed that any new homes created through this route would have to be completed and occupied before the trial ended, thus only schemes that could satisfy both tests were implemented. Towards the second half of the trial period, we saw a significant number of schemes come forward but they were not started because of concerns that both tests could not be satisfied.

Another concern surrounded the availability of office buildings suitable for conversion to residential use. During the threeyear period, an office block needed to be vacant or likely to become vacant within the relevant timeframe. Now that the opportunity to use PDR is available permanently, it provides landlords and investors with the option to consider PDR when the moment suits them as there is more time to plan for the change and take steps to bring it about. Whereas the LPA could have taken comfort from the knowledge that only a small number of buildings might change in the trial period, it now must consider the potential for a greater number of buildings being converted over the medium to longer term.

Some local authorities have now become concerned about how much office space has already been lost or might be lost in the future. This might not have been a significant threat when PDR was temporary, but rising house prices and the falling or stagnant value of commercial space along with the overall shortage of housing means that it could contribute to the steady erosion of space in any given area or borough.

The quality of accommodation is also important, with many office-to-residential conversions failing to meet minimum space standards, which means that the council would not have otherwise approved the density of development. A 14 sq m apartment in Croydon is probably one of the best-known examples of just how small these units can be. Whilst micro-flats have a very positive role to play in the market and developers such as Pocket Living and Town Flats by U&I prove this, councils would prefer to have some control over the quality and type of accommodation within their administrative areas – larger family units are, in particular, highly sought after.

Lastly, by using PDR instead of submitting a normal planning application, local authorities miss out on Section 106 contributions, the provision of affordable housing and any associated infrastructure benefits. They are also unable to apply other policy controls concerning car parking and amenity space as well as >>>

Issue 104 January-March 2018

55

PD RIGHTS FOR OFFICES TO HOMES | NICK TAYLOR

>>>

unit size and mix.

What are the benefits of office-to-residential conversions?

Taller buildings can be converted at a high density without reference to the GLA or national space standards. There are also no requirements to provide parking spaces and affordable housing or make Section 106 contributions. The turnaround can be fast – compared with a standard planning application at least – and there is likely to be a considerable saving on the costs of taking the proposal through the planning system. Wider benefits include making use of redundant space, supplying much needed housing in sustainable central locations and enlivening town and city centres.

From the perspective of developers, there is profit to made.

Secondary or tertiary office accommodation can cost at least £50 per sq ft to refurbish, but only generate a rent of £25 per sq ft if a tenant can be secure at all. As a result, the option to refurbish at £100 per sq ft and sell a finished residential unit for £450 per sq ft when there is already demonstrable demand is the fastest way to enhance the value of the asset and realise it.

However, office to residential conversions are not always lucrative for landlords and developers. In locations where the value of commercial space is high or rising and residential values are flat, conversion is clearly not the best option. This is why our survey suggest that the challenge is localised rather than systemic.

How many homes has PDR delivered in London?

Research from the DCLG for 2016/17 indicated that nearly 6,300 dwellings were created by office-to-residential conversions. This is an increase of close to 73 per cent on the RIGHT: Richmond has imposed an Article 4 Direction across the borough despite the number of faded ‘Offices To Let’ boards

56

Planning in London

previous year, which saw 3,645 homes delivered via this PDR route.

While the number of homes delivered increased, the overall volume of office-to-residential schemes fell by nearly 30 per cent. It is worth noting that the number of schemes that did not require prior approval fell from 201 to 126 along with the overall volume.

As noted, in the draft London Plan, the Mayor is encouraging authorities to consult and introduce Article 4 Directions in certain specified locations. This is in response to the approval of 1.6 million sq m of office space to change to residential by March 2016 (source: London Development Database).

The London Office Policy Review 2017 estimated that over 30,000 jobs have been disrupted, with the overwhelming majority of these being SMEs occupying economically priced space, which might be hard to replace. Hot spots of change in London were close to the CAZ boundary in Camden and Islington, in the South Bank and in Lambeth. Further out, clusters occur in many of the outer London towns, with a clear westwards bias where the values are highest, although Croydon and Brent have experienced the highest level of approvals.

In response to the Mayor’s encouragement, we anticipate an increase in the number of London Boroughs applying for Article 4 Directions. This should be monitored over the next few years and it will be interesting to see how many succeed. The London Borough of Richmond upon Thames has been successful in increasing the number of areas subject to an Article 4 Direction, and this may be a good model for other Councils to adopt. Outside of London, we envisage that the ‘wait and see’ approach will continue. n

HOSTING THE BIG EVENT | JEROME FROST

How to be a host city If current sceptical trends continue, we will see more and more people abandoning their support for major events. This does matter says Jerome Frost

Rethinking legacy for host cities

Jerome Frost is Global Cities Leader, Arup

If current sceptical trends in the views of urban citizens continue, we will see more and more people abandoning their support for major events. In the age of social media this could happen at an alarming rate.

In an era of austerity and uncertainty many would say this does not matter, there are far bigger issues to worry about. But it does matter. Major events such as the Olympic and Paralympic Games, Commonwealth Games and pan-region competitions are more relevant than they have ever been. For cities hosting these high pro le events they should represent the very con dence in our urban futures that we need to pull us out of challenging times. They go beyond the displays of human endeavour and the expressions of multi- cultural unity, of open-mindedness, acceptance and cooperation. Their successful delivery has the power to re-invent the image of a country, accelerate investment and transform cities at a 100 metre pace.

As London has found out since 2012, no amount of ‘businessas-usual’ city planning, promotion and design ambition can replicate the supercharged effect of placing a city in the spotlight of 5bn people and doing it well.

To deliver this potential it is ever more imperative that these events are seen as being primarily for the hosts’ and their citizens’ bene t. They should be adapted to align perfectly with the longer-term ambitions of host cities and nations. Events should focus on development aligned with a city’s growth ambitions, event ‘deals’ that, early on, set out the investment and long term relationships expected in return for hosting, the deployment of demountable, re-useable venues and greater use of digital and personalised event environments. In this context they can be presented to host citizens as accelerants to pre-existing ambitions and expressions of their hosts’ con dence and clarity of purpose. Our aim is to ensure that by adopting this approach, a host city can be assured that their event propositions are delivering maximum long term private investment, value for public money and, most importantly, popular support from their citizens.

A new era for Host Cities Both Los Angeles and Paris 2024 Olympic Games bids represent the new era of hosting major events. Aligned with the International Olympic Committee (IOC) Agenda 2020, both are dominated by the use of existing or temporary venues, maximising ef ciency, minimising costs and dramatically reducing the risk of unused venues post-Games.

This new direction should be the perfect antidote to the populist fuelled opposition that has led to so many cities stepping back from recent major event bidding competitions. And yet, the approach creates a new challenge for host cities – the risk of no tangible legacy at all. In this context, despite sizable reductions in costs, any price may seem too much to citizens who struggle to see any wider bene ts beyond the six weeks of events

www.planninginlondon.com

!

Paris celebrates Olympism: Paris is more mobilised than ever around its candidacy to host the Olympic and Paralympic Games and organised two days in June 2017 where the heart of Paris transformed itself into an ephemeral Olympic park. © Julien Mattia / Le Pictorium

and celebration.

Thus, to rebuild popular support in major events, post-2020 host cities must reinvent ‘legacy’. Without the typical range of physical assets available to previous Games legacies they must instead turn to dramatically extending the bene ts derived from the event. These benefits might include increased civic engagement through volunteer programmes and better public information; a wider audience engaged through personalised event experiences using digital technology and social media; more ef cient organisational models used to manage the city; a shift towards more sustainable behaviour; and capitalising on long term infrastructure investment.

Reimagining Legacy The most powerful effect of a major event on a host city is the way in which it can positively change the behaviours of residents, businesses, government agencies and investors.

In the legacy success stories of Barcelona, Sydney, Beijing and London it has been the Games-induced revival of business con >>>

Issue 104 January-March 2018

57

HOSTING THE BIG EVENT | JEROME FROST

>>>

dence, re-engagement of local communities and restoration of trust in city leadership that has led to transformational changes for those cities.

These bene ts are often masked by the more tangible physical legacies of Olympic Parks, stadia or villages. In the absence of these physical assets post-2020, hosts must focus more overtly on these behavioural legacies if the ‘memory’ of the Games is to be engaged in transforming their cities.

From recent Arup-led research we have highlighted three tactics that are likely to have greatest impact in achieving this: • 1 ‘Urban overlay’: mapping the city’s ambitions and accelerating change through its neighbourhoods and streets.

• 2 Operational excellence: transforming city management and embedding highly ef cient Games time organisational models to increase future resilience.

• 3 Cleaner and greener infrastructure: inspiring and accelerating action to tackle climate change by developing hard and soft ‘climate- ready’ infrastructure

Urban overlay Mapping the city’s ambition What is ‘urban overlay’? Taking the principles engrained in traditional event design and combining them with Arup expertise in city planning, economics and infrastructure delivery, we have developed the ‘urban overlay’ methodology.

At its heart the approach takes the event as an accelerant in realising a city’s longer-term ambitions. In the same way that overlay design is used to create the ‘look and feel’ of an event, the event itself is used to create the ‘look, feel and function’ of the future city.

Thinking long term Overlay techniques have come a long way from their ‘stage

set’ origins. They now include a range of complex structures, streets, projections, soundscapes, re-routed and temporary utilities, all designed to curate the event experience, whilst providing optimal operational environments, security and back-up resilience.

Through the use of long-term overlay, coupled with the careful location of live sites and incidental event-themed cultural activities, a city can bring alive rundown neighbourhoods, demonstrate the development potential of new districts, reenergise open spaces and reimagine stations, airports and the public realm.

Using these same techniques in the urban environment both for the event and extending into its legacy can enable the transformation of places well ahead of their permanent form.

For example, a corridor alongside a newly completed metro line can be brought alive, and neighbourhoods in decline can be reenergised around reimagined, revitalised public spaces.

Local Live Sites ‘Live Sites’ are an integral part of major events, allowing people without tickets the opportunity to feel close to events.

Citizens can watch on big screens and be part of the shared experience. Unlike the current Olympic model, Live Sites could be placed all around the city, bringing the sporting events to each neighbourhood and closer to its citizens. This has two bene ts, it takes the strain off the transport system, as fewer spectators are travelling to the competition venues and in many cases would be able to walk to their local Live Site, encouraging active travel.

The other equally important bene t is that the Games will be seen to be more inclusive, part of every citizen’s experience;

58

Planning in London

LEFT: Live Site concept sketch © Arup

a renewed democratising of the event. Cities around the country could also host live sites, further expanding the experience for all.

Operational excellence Transforming city management. The greatest single risk to the successful legacy of a major event is the potential disruption it can bring to the daily life of the host city. A major event presents a shock that will test a city’s resilience. The citizens and businesses that could suffer excessive congestion, spikes in poor air quality, interrupted services and delayed deliveries are the most likely to drive mass social media opposition to the event and its legacy.

London’s exemplary operation during the 2012 Olympic Games is still referred to by locals as a ‘golden’ glimpse of how smooth life could be in an ef ciently run city. The Olympic period triggered more rail journeys, greater use of journey apps and the adoption of the most ef cient logistics management systems the city had ever experienced.

The adoption of new technologies, coupled with a greater understanding of the power and value of ef cient operations means the potential for a legacy of operational excellence is far more possible in the post 2020 era.

For example, in the Los Angeles context the effect could be dramatic, delivering a modal shift from car to public transport,

www.planninginlondon.com

localising services, transforming inter-city coordination and creating a legacy of ef cient civil defence and community engagement. London created a legacy for event management; Los Angeles has the opportunity to transform city management.

Host cities reimagining legacy Cleaner and greener infrastructure Catalysing climate action through hard and soft infrastructure. The new era of hosting major events post-2020 will bring greater de nition to the sustainability agenda. Events of the past have focussed on direct event-related sustainability outcomes such as construction and operational waste, reduced energy and water use and low carbon materials. Whilst these elements remain important, an event that utilises more of the existing infrastructure will have a greater long term impact on city-wide resilience, sustainability, climate change and air quality. The most effective host cities will have already identi ed their pan-city environmental priorities. A big event brings the opportunity to scale up and accelerate these ambitions through: • Consumer awareness campaigns • Low emission zones • New metro lines • Modal shift from car to public transport • Electric transportation • New temporary/permanent sources of energy >>>

Issue 104 January-March 2018

59

HOSTING THE BIG EVENT | JEROME FROST

RIGHT: Venue optimisation dashboard concept ©Arup

>>> • City-wide resilience planning and systems • Localised energy, cooling and water systems • Reprogrammed waste collection/sorting mechanisms • Flood protection/retention • City amenity/breathing space.

So a planned metro line could be accelerated and a modal shift induced through Games coordination. City resilience proposals could be delivered as a legacy of Games operations requirements. Air quality zones could be introduced around venues and Live Sites to encourage the shift to non-polluting forms of travel.

New approaches to optimising cost All major event organisers are searching for new tactics and tools to make their Games more affordable, such as extending event schedules so that some sporting events could start sooner to free up the venue for a follow-on sport. Another option would be reducing venue capacity requirements.

These two initiatives could have a hugely positive impact on the cost of the Games and legacy benefits.

To achieve this new direction, hosts, organisers and their advisors will need to deploy a range of new tools and tactics.

At Arup we have been focusing on a number of approaches, which include: 1 Financing events differently 2 Optimising venue use 3 Reducing capacities and using temporary venues 4 The alternative digital experience Financing events differently: aligning with a city's strategic plan There has been a recent trend in citizens showing their reluctance for their city to host a major event. Issues pertaining to cost, security, new priorities for public funds and ongoing questions around legacy bene ts are driving this reluctance, manifested in popular referenda where citizens have explicitly rejected the idea of hosting.

And yet, cities need infrastructure development to maintain

60

Planning in London

and grow their economic productivity. Infrastructure investment therefore usually lies at the heart of a city’s strategic plan. With cost, sources of funding and speed of delivery all critical concerns, major events can both accelerate infrastructure delivery, and provide momentum for deal-making to forward fund major infrastructure.

Value capture techniques can be applied to major projects, which when used alongside the momentum of a major event to accelerate delivery, becomes an attractive proposition for a city’s economic growth.

Offsetting the costs of major events compared to ‘business as usual’ spending can also shed light on the real costs of hosting. In London for example, a signi cant proportion of costs were related to infrastructure, land acquisition and remediation that needed to happen at some point, regardless of whether the city hosted the Olympic Games or not. However, it is arguable whether this would have happened in such a coherent and effective way without the ‘Olympic effect’.

Optimising venue use: strategic digital dashboard Arup is developing a strategic digital dashboard for cities planning to host major events. Our extensive experience in event planning and city making is being used to design a tool that will draw upon a wide pool of data to provide rapid insight for host cities who need to make decisions about the form and nature of their unique major event.

The dashboard will have numerous data parameters allowing us to evaluate what the consequences would be if, for instance, the preliminary rounds of a certain sport began a few days early, as it does with football; or what the consequences would be of reducing the venue’s capacity, either by using a temporary venue or a smaller existing venue.

Host cities optimising cost Reducing capacities and using temporary venues: speed of delivery and transition to legacy.

Reduced venue capacity requirements are where real sav-

ings start to materialise, and affordable off-the-shelf or pre-engineered venues become a realistic proposition. Apart from a few of the larger venues, such as the main stadium, it is conceivable that almost all major events could in the future use either temporary or existing venues. One of the big advantages of temporary venues is the speed at which land can be released for redevelopment after a major event. They are faster and cheaper to erect and mitigate the risk of post event ‘white elephants’.

Scaling down venue capacities means reduced spectator numbers and ticket based revenues; ticket revenue is a key part of any major event so this would need to be mitigated through other forms of associated event revenue.

Fair and equal access to tickets also continues to be live issue.

Improving online systems and using space more effectively for sponsors, organising members, media and spectating athletes can help create smaller but fuller venues. And from an athlete and spectator point of view, smaller venues generally result in a packed house and a great atmosphere.

The alternative digital experience: more immersive environments, increased participation. While nothing compares with attending a live event, the emergence of virtual reality and digital, hand-held technology has allowed us to capture some of that atmosphere and excitement in ways that were simply not possible in the past.

Digital and virtual event environments are becoming more common, and for the rst time virtual reality technology was used at the Rio Olympic Games. Although not quite at the point where sports fans could put on headsets and enter Olympic venues, it gave a glimpse of potential future use.

With the huge uptake in eGames and the use of VR devices such as Oculus Rift, a shift to viewing sport in virtual reality environments is a huge opportunity for major events to increase spectator participation and boost the numbers that might be lost due to reduced venue capacities.

Programmes such as ‘Have a Go’ sports coaching were introduced at some London Live Sites. For these to have a real impact and lasting legacy, these sites should inherit new and better sporting facilitates with a long-term commitment to coaching and maintenance and become a feature in neighbourhood life.

Host cities conclusion Delivering a legacy of institutional capacity. Embedding urban overlay, operational excellence and clean and green infrastructure principles into the delivery plan for a major event goes a long way to guaranteeing a transformation for the city. But long term success comes from the building of institutional capacity to deliver bene ts before, during and after the event.

Too often this delivery capacity is lost post-Games and the city reverts to normal operations and frustrations. For example, London largely decommissioned their integrated transport control centre after the Games, arguably reducing institutional capacity and resilience. Inevitably, with events on a global scale occurring relatively infrequently every host city tends to start the planning process from a level of relative inexperience. Whilst there are a number of international experts available to advise on the delivery and operations of the event, there are few that can focus on building the capacity to convert the event into a legacy for a city and its people.

Arup has developed a ‘coaching’ style approach to working with its city clients. Through our network of clients, former city officials, former city leaders and technical experts we aim to help clients build capacity of their own through a trusted, con dante and empathetic relationship. We don’t presume to know better, instead we aim to help our clients build their own expertise, con dence and long term delivery capacity.

Our aim is to ensure that our host city clients deliver maximum long-term private investment, value for public money and, most importantly gain their citizens’ support. n

The future Live Site Inspiring the community. The Live Sites of London 2012 provided the opportunity for a larger community to be part of the Olympic experience in an immersive and exciting atmosphere.

As digital technology advances the experience in Live Sites will only improve offering far more than giant screens with food and beverage concessions.

The future Live Sites could offer virtual reality environments that allow spectators to tune into any number of live sports, get guided tours of venues or listen to their favourite athlete being interviewed. With free, or cheaper, entrance fees than competition venues, Live Sites could be highly accessible to families and youngsters.

Another feature of Live Sites should be to inspire the community to develop sporting skills and a habit of regular exercise.

www.planninginlondon.com

Issue 104 January-March 2018

61

Save 10% using code

340PIL

Waterfront’s 3rd Annual

-

Transport-Led Development in London and the South East 2018

Tues 16th January | Pinsent Masons, London Capitalising on opportunities for improved connectivity, unlocking growth and KLSP]LYPUN KLUZPÄJH[PVU PU .YLH[LY 3VUKVU Featuring speakers from Alex Williams, Director of City Planning, Transport for London Mark Farrow, Director - London Rail, Network Rail Michèle Dix, Managing Director, Crossrail 2 Chris Joyce, Head of Surface Access, Heathrow Airport

T: 0207 067 1597 E: conference@thewaterfront.co.uk W: www.thewaterfront.co.uk

$YDLODEOH QRZ IURP %DWK 3XEOLVKLQJ 0DUWLQ *RRGDOO·V GHILQLWLYH JXLGHV WR 8VH RI /DQG &KDQJHV RI 8VH 2)) )25 3/$11,1* ,1 /21'21 5($'(56 86( &2'( 3/21 :+(1 25'(5,1* 7KH GHILQLWLYH KDQGERRN H[SODLQLQJ WKH OHJDO UXOHV JRYHUQLQJ WKH XVH RI ODQG DQG EXLOGLQJV DV ZHOO DV PDWHULDO FKDQJHV RI XVH Æ&#x201D; VW HGLWLRQ SXEOLVKHG 1RYHPEHU Æ&#x201D; SDJHV SDSHUEDFN Æ&#x201D; 3ULQW Â&#x2026; Â&#x2026; S S Æ&#x201D; 3ULQW GLJLWDO EXQGOH Â&#x2026; 9$7 Æ&#x201D; 'LJLWDO RQO\ Â&#x2026; 9$7 Æ&#x201D; ,6%1

7KH RQO\ XS WR GDWH FRPSUHKHQVLYH SUDFWLFDO JXLGH WR SHUPLWWHG FKDQJHV RI XVH XQGHU WKH PXFK FKDQJHG *HQHUDO 3HUPLWWHG 'HYHORSPHQW 2UGHU Æ&#x201D; QG HGLWLRQ SXEOLVKHG 2FWREHU Æ&#x201D; SDJHV SDSHUEDFN Æ&#x201D; 3ULQW Â&#x2026; Â&#x2026; S S Æ&#x201D; 3ULQW GLJLWDO EXQGOH Â&#x2026; 9$7 Æ&#x201D; 'LJLWDO RQO\ Â&#x2026; 9$7 Æ&#x201D; ,6%1

5HDG PRUH RUGHU DW ZZZ EDWKSXEOLVKLQJ FRP SODQQLQJ

PLANNING CONSULTANCY OF THE YEAR | RIËTTE OOSTHUIZEN

A decade of HTA Planning: embracing ‘Good Growth’ Riëtte Oosthuizen sees design as an interdisciplinary process, and values the potential of small sites after winning the Planning Award for Planning Consultancy of the Year 2017

RIGHT: Hanham Hall, Bristol: HTA Design LLP for Barratt Homes

Riëtte Oosthuizen is planning partner at HTA Design LLP

64

Planning in London

Whilst lecturing on the impossibly wide subject of ‘Planning’ recently - conveying how we tend to work as planning consultants integral to the design process - an architectural student expressed surprise that I could think that planners could be actively engaged in the design process through conversation and continual review.

Having worked in a multi-disciplinary practice for ten years after being enticed to join HTA by Brian Waters, the challenge of interdisciplinary design is not to be underestimated but when it works well, it is a truly rewarding experience. The delivery of Hanham Hall, Bristol, a zero carbon community remains one of the best examples where the final outcome on site was very much informed through a very iterative process of reviewing what we wanted to achieve as a practice, thorough team work amongst the disciplines of architecture, landscape design, sustainability and planning and working with closely with local residents and Council officials.

Sadiq Khan’s Good Growth agenda for design is all about inclusivity, balance, contextuality, partnership and resilience.

Good growth also happens through appropriate and celebrated interdisciplinary working, and a proactive and professional attitude. Planners are integral to this process.

It is a very exciting time to be in the midst of housing delivery within London. Change is on the horizon and there is the opportunity to explore as planning professionals how to do things differently. I get the sense that for the first time there is the opportunity to be slightly more future focussed; not stuck

in a reactive rut. We would all need to be a lot more creative.

Sadiq Khan is significantly pushing out the housing agenda with a focus on good design quality, safety, sustainability and affordability. We have been shocked this year by events such as Grenfell and it has brought with it renewed focus on the value of social housing. Wider affordability for normal working people in London, however, remains a problem as is working successfully with communities so that they do not relentlessly oppose development.

HTA’s planning team were delighted to have been awarded The Planning Award for Planning Consultancy of the Year 2017.

It is a great way to celebrate our one decade birthday. As a relatively small planning consultancy set within a large multi-disciplinary practice, this type of recognition is great for our profile, in particular when we regularly need to convince clients of the value we can add by working closely with architects within the same practice. Interdisciplinarity is becoming more of a buzz word in the industry – I believe good interdisciplinary working is absolutely key to good design outcomes.

In order to get the Award we had to demonstrate how our planning work has helped clients to have a positive impact on the physical or environmental quality of a place or places and/or the economic or social well-being of a community or communities. HTA’s planning team supports a range of clients and local organisations through the planning process, resolving planning issues at strategic and detailed level as well as producing research on innovative housing solutions to stimulate

RIGHT: Infill Development at Dover Court Estate, Islington, HTA Planning with PTE Architects

debate.

As well as working with clients from the public sector, private sector and housing associations, HTA have developed research projects to explore how to deliver additional housing in London.

Projects include a research study in 2016 on behalf of Apex Airspace Development testing London’s rooftop capacity to deliver new homes. HTA also continues to develop the concept of intensifying the suburbs through ‘Supurbia’, exploring how planning can facilitate innovative housing solutions to increase the supply of new homes by increasing densities in London’s outer boroughs through careful design coding, setting up new work, play and living spaces that are attractive and sustainable and facilitating future growth.

As part of the Awards process, the Judges commented on our work as follows: “Consultancy HTA Design focuses much of its work on supporting London boroughs with their housing delivery programmes and regeneration projects. However, it was the company’s "commitment to community" that caught the eye of the judges - and its willingness to take on non-fee earning community projects. These include securing permission for a play struc-

ture and performance space at an adventure playground in Haringey, north London, and for an arts facility in a listed building in Lewisham, in the south of the capital. Judges said the firm "consistently included a strong community approach" and "demonstrated clearly how they brought value" to the range of projects they worked on.”

HTA secured the necessary planning consents to enable young people in Haringey to design and construct an external structure in the Somerford Grove Adventure Playground, named by those involved as ‘The Whaler’. As one of HTA’s Priority Research and Innovation Projects, the team also secured the use Louise House as a community arts facility for V22, with support from Heritage and Landscape Disciplines at HTA on a pro-bono basis.

As specialists in the housing sector, the challenges of the housing sector are many. With a new London Plan taking shape, it would be interesting to see to what extend it will facilitate

www.planninginlondon.com

ABOVE:: Supurbia: how Outer London can transform around transport nodes, HTA Design LLP LEFT: HTA’s planning team research for Apex Airspace on the capacity of London’s rooftops to deliver additional homes

Issue 104 January-March 2018

>>>

65

PLANNING CONSULTANCY OF THE YEAR | RIĂ&#x2039;TTE OOSTHUIZEN

>>> more innovation in housing delivery: I am particularly pleased and encouraged to see the strong focus on small sites. These sites are some of the most difficult to get through the planning process; yet they have immense potential. Through our Supurbia work, we have demonstrated that there is latent potential for more than 360,000 additional homes in the Outer London Boroughs in the proximity of stations with PTAL ratings of 3 and above, not located in Town Centres. It is great to see the emphasis on a presumption in favour of small sites in the new London Plan. We have been campaigning for this for some time.

We work with a number of boroughs on their small sites and regeneration sites. It is not uncommon for these small sites to take as long to get planning approval as tall towers. This does not make sense, in particular when these schemes are often very well designed and aim to deliver large amounts of affordable housing. Exciting times lie ahead. We certainly look forward to continue exploring interesting ways in which Londonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s smaller sites can contribute to housing need and more affordable forms of housing for all. n

FROM THE TOP: Transformation of Louise House, Forest Hill, HTA Design LLP for V22 The Whaler and Sandpit, Haringey, HTA Design with local young people My colleagues Simon Owen and Sarah Eley receiving The Planning Award for Planning Consultancy of the Year 2017 Infill development at Newstead, Enfield, HTA Planning with Peter Barber Architects

66

Planning in London

BOOKS | ‘UNCIVILISED GENES’ REVIEWED BY JONATHAN MANNS

Gustav Milne’s Uncivilised Genes A readable and convincing demonstration of the importance of designing and inhabiting places which are suited to human wellbeing says Jonathan Manns

Jonathan Manns is director of planning, Colliers International

is an easily digestible summary of the evolutionary case for reconsidering modern life and, whilst relatively light on detailed solutions, contains a clear and convincing narrative: that human evolution has not caught up with the way in which we live today.

Milne is an archaeologist. He spent twenty years working as a rescue archaeologist with the Museum of London’s Department of Urban Archaeology from 1973 to 1993 before joining UCL’s Institute of Archaeology in 1991, where he is an Honorary Senior Lecturer. It is in this capacity that he worked as co-ordinator of research for UCL’s ‘Evolutionary Determinants of Health’ project, which formed the basis for this book.

Milne’s background becomes immediately apparent as ‘our ancient but largely uncivilised genes’ are described in their evolutionary context of food, tribalism, music and words from an archaeological-biological perspective. The content may not be ground-breaking in itself, but this does not diminish the book’s relevance or increasing importance: so-called ‘lifestyle diseases’ are on the rise across the world.

The lineages of apes and humans began to diverge about six million years ago. Four million years ago early humans began walking with only two legs. Two million years ago we stopped inter-breeding with our apish counterparts. Then, 5-10,000 years ago, we began to cultivate crops and livestock, fundamentally changing the way in which we lived and giving rise to what would become towns and cities. Uncivilised Genes reveals the result, that a ‘fundamental mismatch exists between our Paleolithic genome and modern urban living’.

Where Uncivilised Genes succeeds is in emphasising the extent to which ‘large permanent settlements like cities seem the very antithesis of the hunter-gatherers’ world’ and that the human mind and body remains essentially identical that of those for whom ‘nature was not a philosophic abstraction but a fact of life’. Where it less detailed is on the solutions. As we can’t speed up evolution, Milne reasons, we must change our lifestyles.

Although Milne suggests a range of evolutionary-concordant protocols, termed ‘Eden Protocols’, these flag only cursory reforms of urban design guidelines and public health programmes; think access to green space, walkable neighbourhoods, integrated transport and medium-rise development. We’re pointed towards carrot-and-stick measures of education and regulation, particularly in terms of diet and physical activity.

There’s nonetheless a sense that Milne fails to fully find his voice as author. The tone blends that of one for academic and public audiences seeming almost apologetic, claiming Uncivilised Genes to be ‘an expression of a point of view, for which supporting evidence-based research has been presented’.

The result is sporadic referencing and a flow which can at times feel a little clunky.

www.planninginlondon.com

Any possible stylistic shortcomings do not detract significantly from the merit of Uncivilised Genes as a readable and convincing demonstration of the importance of designing and inhabiting places which are suited to human well-being. It empowers us to think confidently about how we should be living our lives, particularly in towns and cities, and the types of changes that might be required to secure a healthier and more prosperous future for us all. n

Contents include: 1. In the Beginning; 2. Genesis; 3. A View of the Garden; 4. A Hunger Game; 5. Food for Thought; 6. Body of Evidence; 7. A Life Less Sedentary;

8. Lost Tribes; 9. Hunter-Gatherer vs. Football-Shopper; 10. Music and Words; 11. Green and Pleasant; 12. Central Park; 13. Old Town; 14. Urban Regeneration; 15. Revelations.

Issue 104 January-March 2018

67

Hardback ÂŁ50 Get 35% off with code PLANNING laurenceking.com

A seminal new text on modern architecture, embracing all of the important architectural movements and influences of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.

Paperback available 5 February 2018

BOOKS: ‘A PLACE FOR ALL PEOPLE’ REVIEWED BY DAVID EDWARDS

‘A place for all people’ A Place for All People: Life, Architecture and the Fair Society, by Richard Rogers and Richard Brown, Hardcover £20 Part autobiography, part history and partly a statement of intent; it would be difficult to put Richard Rogers’ latest book, into one particular category says reviewer David Edwards

David Edwards is director of Place-Make Architects + Urban Planners

I should begin this review with two confessions. Firstly, while I could appreciate the significance of the buildings of Team 4, Richard Rogers Partnership (RRP) and Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners (RSHP) in truth, I haven’t always understood the intent behind these. Secondly, at some point, I’d stopped reading technically and professionally related material of an evening.

For each of these reasons, I had reservations that I would be able to enjoy the book without necessarily understanding the practices’ buildings and also, about mustering enthusiasm after a busy day in the office.

As it turned out, neither of these were an issue. I would find myself purposely saving chapters to read at later times and actually finished it in bed - usually the domain of fiction reading!

Additionally, I was developing a particular interest in each project through having a greater awareness of both the context and the objectives that underpinned these.

Quite significantly, and I hadn’t expected this, ‘A place for all people’ has been professionally invigorating. For many of us in practice, particularly those in small and medium sized offices, long days are often spent juggling administrative, business development, technical and if fortunate, design responsibilities.

Sometimes, after a morning and a half of the first two, it is easy to lose sight of the initial reasons for choosing architecture as a profession; the enthusiasm for buildings and design.

It was refreshing to read that regardless of the size or specialism of the practice, there will be parallels between your projects and the realisation of some of the great buildings of our time by one of the leading architects. How Piano + Rogers first won the competition for the Pompidou Centre, formulated a team and then battled through a political and logistical minefield to complete the project is a particularly interesting section. Equally, comparisons between the planning and implementation of Heathrow Airport’s Terminal 5 in a UK context and Barajas Airport’s Terminal 4 in Spain.

In ‘A place for all people’, Rogers intertwines personal and professional. I must admit, it took me a while to realise why the book is structured in this way. For Lord Rogers, these are inseparable; the buildings are rooted in the principles of the man and to appreciate the relationship it is necessary to alternate between the timelines of his life and portfolio.

The intent for the arrangement of the Bordeaux Law Courts may be partly related to Rogers' own experiences with the law as a young man in Italy. Similarly, how his road trip experiences through the American heartland has helped to shape his approach to services and circulation, which are a continual thread through his buildings. Or, how his attitude to the public realm is rooted in his political outlook, family, formative years in Florence and subsequent travels around Italy.

Equally, through presenting the practices’ immense body of

www.planninginlondon.com

work in such a manner, it is possible to recognise Rogers’ own influences from traditional Japanese villas to Joseph Paxton, Frank Lloyd Wright and the Bauhaus and also, to see how his individual approach has evolved over time. Particularly, a consistency in the methodology and treatment of each building is clearly apparent, which serves to unify these as part of a family with variation according to scale, function and context. Some references to the ‘practices’ buildings’ rather than to ‘Rogers’ buildings’ are intentional. For me, one of Richard Rogers’ most notable and endearing qualities appears to be not only his ability to bring people together but also to share the fruits of the labour. Throughout this book, he consistently credits those individuals that have had a particular impact in delivering a project in addition to the significance of the multidisciplinary team and the collaborative process.

The book is peppered with recollections of his experiences with some of the leading artists, architects, designers, thinkers and politicians of the age. It was particularly interesting to read about his relationship with Prince Charles and the impact this had on the practice while his anecdote about Jim Sterling and the RSPCA is worth the admission fee alone!

It is just over fifty years ago that Rogers and Team 4 completed their first project, Creek Vean and almost half a century since he and Renzo Piano were appointed for the Pompidou Centre.

With this in mind, it would have been quite justifiable to make this book all about him - and for a good part it is. However, to me, it is also the story of those that he has connected with along the way - from tutors and colleagues to family and friends. In keeping with the ethos of his practices and the great buildings they have produced, the book also represents the coming together of many parts to create something special.

Passages about (as yet) unrealised projects will be particularly interesting to those who are already very familiar with his completed works, chapters about planning and society are a must read for anyone with an interest in place-shaping or simply a love of the city while sections about growing up, life and family are warm and honest.

Ultimately, I enjoyed this book so much that I may now have to begin it again at a more leisurely pace while last weekend, I returned to see the Lloyd’s and Leadenhall buildings afresh and visited a recently completed residential project on London’s South Bank. At some point in the near future, I’m hoping to visit the Pompidou specifically rather than as part of a weekend’s sightseeing trip. Having started this book with a touch of trepidation, I’ve finished it (or perhaps just begun) with a great admiration for both the author and his almost unparalleled collection of work. n

Issue 104 January-March 2018

69

‘A NEW HISTORY OF MODERN ARCHITECTURE’ INTRODUCED BY THE AUTHOR

A New History of Modern Architecture by Colin Davies Colin Davies introduces his important new book

Discout offer for PiL readers on previous pages

RIGHT: Images from the book

Colin Davies is an architect who was until recently Professor of Architectural Theory at London Metropolitan University. His other books include Thinking About Architecture, Key Houses of the Twentieth Century, The Prefabricated Home and High Tech Architecture

70

Planning in London

Each new generation of architects disparages its immediate predecessor. The Modernists hated the Beaux Arts classicists, the Postmodernists ridiculed the Modernists, the Deconstructivists despised the Postmodernists and now the Parametricists ignore all precedents on the basis that they were pre-digital and therefore pre-historic. Well, we’ll see.

The break with history may not be final. Because there is another process at work, a different historical rhythm.

Paradoxically, the striving for novelty usually involves a backward glance, not to the previous generation but to the one before. For example we recently passed through period of renewed interest in the Brutalist Modernism of the 60s, and now an enthusiasm for 80s Postmodernism is making itself felt in the offices and lecture halls.

With each new phase, the whole of history of modern (small ‘m’) architecture shifts slightly in the memory and in its various scholarly containers. Thirty years ago architectural historians thought their main task was to tell the story of the ‘inevitable’ rise of Modernism. So when they looked at the architecture of the 1920s and 30s they mainly ignored, or only mentioned in passing, the various non-Modernist styles – Art Deco, the New York skyscraper, the Chinese ‘National Style’, traditional classicism, both fascist and democratic – to which the majority of important buildings conformed. Modernism, though still widely acknowledged as the characteristic style of the twentieth century, now takes its place in a more balanced historical view.

This doesn’t mean that history’s attentions have been reapportioned ‘fairly’ according to some statistical or democratic principle. That would be a history of building, not a history of architecture. We have to accept that there is a bias built in to the very concept ‘architecture’. Viewed globally, it is not so much a profession or a discipline as a loosely bounded, western oriented cultural field. The dictionary may define it simply as ‘the design of buildings’ but we know very well that in practice most buildings – factories, warehouses, retail parks, popular housing, shanty towns, refugee camps – are excluded from the category ‘architecture’. Nikolaus Pevsner’s famous distinction between a cathedral and a bicycle shed still applies.

And even within architecture, there is a selectiveness with which history connives. That privileged group of examples known as the ‘artistic canon’ may be full of distortions and injustices but that doesn’t mean it isn’t useful. In fact it is essential to the progress of the art, because it is a meeting place, a common point of reference for architects and architectural students all over the world. Anyone who wishes to participate fully in the international architectural conversation

must have a knowledge of the canon. Of course, the canon is not static. As our view of the past changes, like the widening wake of a ship, the relative importance of historical examples will alter, some rising in importance, others sinking into irrelevance. And there will be new observations and examples to add, not all of them products of the recent past.

One school of thought asserts that history, as a discipline, must ignore the needs of the present in order to deliver truths about the past. This may apply to those historians who produce ‘new’ history based on deep research into narrow fields of primary evidence. But practical people – for example architects, planners, politicians and developers – need a bigger picture. Their understanding of the past is based on comparison; comparison of buildings, periods, styles, movements, ideas and, most importantly, comparison of the past with the present. ‘A New History of Modern Architecture’ provides the means to make those comparisons and gain that understanding, combining copious illustrations, including plans and sections, with an engaging, readable text. In a word, it aims to be useful. n

‘THE DESIGN COMPANION’ REVIEWED BY KEVIN RADFORD

The Design Companion for Planning and Placemaking The NPPF gives weight to the need for good, appropriate design and supports planners’ efforts to create successful places. The Design Companion has been published to help with this says Kevin Radford

Kevin Radford is associate director of masterplanning and urban design at PRP Architects

What has been needed since the publication of Better Places to Live: By Design and The Urban Design Compendium (two stalwarts in the urban designer’s reference shelf now closing in on twenty years old) is a clear, concise guidance manual for planning practitioners dealing with complex design matters.

For a long time there has been little advice for planning officers on how to critique mediocre design, or tools to enable them to present an argument for better design. Instead, the likes of the Design Council-CABE and local design panels such as Design:South East and the GLA Architecture, Design and Urbanism Panel have been the prime arbiters of design commentary on planning applications.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) gives weight to the need for good, appropriate design, and paragraph 58 in particular, supports planners’ efforts to create successful places.

The Design Companion has been published for local authority planners to help with this. It has been written by a group of experienced designers from across the public and private sectors as a companion to the NPPF and Planning Practice Guidance, to provide a greater level of detail and ensure the successful delivery of great places and sustainable development.

The book has been split into two parts. The first looks at the integration of planning and design and how both influence and are influenced on each other, including a review of relevant legislation and processes. The second part focuses on the specifics of design and dealing with the day to day design matters that influence the success of a planning application and ultimately the quality of the built environment. It has been edited with short introductions before presenting key issues and some solutions.

In particular the second section provides guidance on critical issues for designing successful places.

Whilst the overall layout is simple and clear and the chapters logically run from the overview to the detail, there seems to have been significant editing down of the guidance almost to bullet point format. This then relies on informative diagrams and precedent imagery to illustrate the points raised. The quality of the imagery and diagrams associated with the text does vary and therefore can detract from the good points being made.

Each chapter in part two has been authored by different individuals, focusing on a specific design area, from street design to tall buildings. Inevitably this leads to a varying degree of quality of information and guidance. Each chapter introduces the key design principles and issues to consider which are then illustrated through the use of diagram, precedent photographs and text, finishing with a bullet point list of key points for planners to consider. Ultimately though, the solutions and examples shown fall short of real guidance in securing a high quality solution all plan-

www.planninginlondon.com

FROM: RIBA Publications, £30

!

See Esther Kurland’s introduction to the book in our last issue, PiL103

ning matters. This is not a failing of the authors so much as the magnitude of approach taken by the book. Design is about understanding the place first and foremost followed then by the application of clear design principles based on best practice.

The book is a useful reference document for local authority planning departments by providing a commentary and points of note on the key design principles for creating good places. There is straight talking advice on issues to watch out for and tools for a shared dialogue with professional teams although the book does fall short of providing real clarity on understanding the sense of place and what is important in any one location. This ultimately comes down to experience. n

Issue 104 January-March 2018

71

‘THE ESSENTIAL GUIDE TO THE USE OF LAND AND BUILDINGS’ REVIEWED BY ANDREW ROGERS

The Essential Guide To The Use Of Land And Buildings Under The Planning Acts This splendid book by Martin H Goodall certainly makes real sense of land use in our convoluted planning system, says Andrew Rogers

Andrew Rogers is planning consultant

72

Planning in London

I was recently reminded that in April 2011 Eric Pickles, then Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, proposed (yet again) a simplification of the planning system to make development issues more straightforward so that planning barristers and consultants would “think twice about that third week in Tuscany or whether to buy the Lamborghini after all”.

Six and a half years later we have a pair of guides to the over-complicated planning system written by planning lawyer Martin Goodall. The latest explains the planning issues relating to the use of land and buildings using 338 pages of text, with reference to more than 200 court cases (30 of these arising after the statement made by Uncle Eric). Regular readers will know that Martin’s first tome, A Practical Guide to Permitted Changes of Use, ran to 316 pages - and was quickly followed by a second edition. So much for simplification.

An author’s note at the start of his new volume sets out the context of use classes in planning and emphasises Martin’s aim to produce a convenient work of reference, bringing together a wealth of material to explain “the legal and practical ramifications of land use planning” - from Aerodomes and Afforestation to Youth Clubs and Zoological Gardens.

After several general chapters on the planning unit and other concepts including material changes of use and how uses can subtly alter over time, Martin tackles the Use Classes Order with individual sections on shops/retail, catering, business/industrial, residential including non-domestic use, leisure, institutions and agriculture/forestry. The final quarter of the book, and for me the most fascinating, covers unlawful uses, lawful development certificates and appeals.

There are currently 15 main use classes with some 37 subdivisions, plus a catch-all for anything not included known as sui generis (of its own kind). Switching between uses is a complex business that is thoroughly explained. It is by no means clear to me that such a variety is really necessary - it could be argued (although not of course by Martin) that only three use classes would be sufficient: noxious, residential and other. But that’s another story.

What I like most about Martin’s excellent book - aside from his clear description of what numerous varied and/or unusual uses mean in planning terms - are the incidental explanations of often obscure or difficult concepts such as curtilage, live/work and abandonment - always with extensive references to established case law.

He covers a wide range of use issues, including the difference between primary and ancillary uses as well as between operational and material changes, the implication and validity of restrictive conditions, and how to distinguish between passive omission and deliberate deception.

Following its completion, events continue to demonstrate Martin’s prescience in dealing with his subject. My on-line Planning Resource has just picked up two very recent appeal summaries that, although not directly included because they post-date publication, happen to be comprehensively covered by passages in the book: a permission granted for change of use from retail to a massage salon (explained on page 107); and a refusal for the continued use of a listed windmill for short-term holiday lets (page 262).

Ultimately this book proves that Uncle Eric - like so many before him (and indeed since) - failed utterly to simplify the planning system. It will, like its predecessor, take a place on my bookshelf and computer desktop as an indispensable guide to a complex but fundamental part of planning, the everyday use of land and buildings.

Alexander Pope observed that “’Tis use alone that sanctifies expense, And splendour borrows all her rays from sense.”

This splendid book certainly makes real sense of land use in our convoluted planning system. n

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 ‘planning in london directory’.

LONDON BOROUGHS DIRECTORY

Jane Richardson Strategic Planning and Regeneration Jane.richardson@bexley.gov.uk 020 3045 5712

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

David Bryce-Smith Development Housing and Community david.bryce-smith@bexley.gov.uk 020 3045 5718 Seb Salom Head of Strategic Planning and Transportation Seb.salom@bexley.gov.uk 0203 045 5779 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

Jeremy Grint Divisional Director of Regeneration and Economic Development jeremy.grint@lbbd.gov.uk 020 8227 2443

London Borough of Barnet Building 4 North London Business Park (NLBP) Oakleigh Road South London N11 1NP 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 Order from ribabookshops.com ISBN 978 1 85946 748 0

Companion for Planning and Placemakind A4 ad.indd 5

London Borough of Bexley Civic Offices Broadway Bexleyheath DA6 7LB 0208 303 7777 www.bexley.gov.uk/planning

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;

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

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 Jim Kehoe, Chief Planner jim.kehoe@bromley.gov.uk 0208 8313 4441 Lisa Thornley Development Control Support Officer lisa.thornley@bromley.gov.uk 020 8461 7566

David Harley Group Manager Economic Development david.harley@lbbd.gov.uk 020 8227 5316 Daniel Pope Group Manager Development Planning daniel.pope@lbbd.gov.uk 020 8227 3929

John Humphries, Building Control John.humphries@brent.gov.uk 020 8937 5477

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Barking Town Hall Barking IG11 7LU

Jeanette.collins@brent.gov.uk 020 8937 5206

London Borough of Brent Brent Civic Centre Engineers Way Wembley HA9 0FJ 020 8937 1200 www.brent.gov.uk Stephen Weeks Head of Planning Alice Lester Stephen.weeks@brent.gov.uk 020Licensing 8937 Head of Planning, Transport and 5238 Alice.Lester@brent.gov.uk 020 8937 6441 Chris Walker Assistant Director, Planning & Development chris.walker@brent.gov.uk 020 8937 5246 Aktar Choudhury Operational Director of Regeneration Dave Carroll aktar.choudhury@brent.gov.uk Head of New Initiatives 020 8937 1764 dave.carroll@brent.gov.uk 020 8937 5202 Aktar Choudhury Tim Rolt Operational EnforcementDirector Managerof Planning & Design aktar.choudhury@brent.gov.uk 020 Tim.rolt@brent.gov.uk 8937 17645242 020 8937

Philip Everett Director of the Built Environment Philip.everett@cityoflondon.gov.uk 020 7332 1600 Annie Hampson Chief Planning Officer and Development Director annie.hampson@cityoflondon.gov.uk 020 7332 1700

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

Help Shape the Future of London

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

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

Head of Development Management As a member you get priority booking and pete.smith@croydon.gov.uk discounted rates for our walks, talks, debates

Rachel Stoppard Deputy Chief Executive Rachel.stoppard@camden.gov.uk

and lectures. You will see inside important buildings (some not generally open to the public) on

Frances Wheat Acting Assistant Director for Regeneration & Planning frances.wheat@camden.gov.uk 020 7974 5630

£ Rachel McConnell Team Manager North Rob Krzyszowski Rachel.mcconnell@brent.gov.uk 020 Spatial Planning Manager 8937 5228 Rob.Krzyszowski@brent.gov.uk 020 8937 2704 Andy Bates Team Manager South Andy.bates@brent.gov.uk 020 8937 5228 David Glover Development Management Manager Tim Rolt David.Glover@brent.gov.uk Enforcement Manager 020 8937 5344 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

www.planninginlondon.com

John Barradell OBE Town Clerk and Chief Executive John.barradell@cityoflondon.gov.uk 020 7332 1400

Ric Patterson our tours. There will be opportunities to attend events held in some of London’s most Head social of Building Control interesting locations. richard.patterson@croydon.gov.uk

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

London Borough of Ealing Perceval House 14-16 Uxbridge Road Ealing London W5 2HL 020 8825 6600 http://www.ealing.gov.uk/planning Martin Smith Chief Executive smithm@ealing.gov.uk 020 8825 7089

Issue 99 OCTOBER-DECEMBER Issue 104 January-March 2016 2018

65 73

Lucy Taylor Director of Regeneration and Planning Policy taylorl@ealing.gov.uk 020 8825 9036 Noel Rutherford Director of Built Environment rutherfordn@ealing.gov.uk 020 8825 6639 Pat Hayes Executive Director Regeneration & Housing hayesp@ealing.gov.uk 020 8825 8280 London Borough of Enfield

Tim.jackson@greenwich.gov.uk 020 8921 5463

Planning Control Manager helen.oakerbee@havering.gov.uk 01708 432800

Sue Sewell Head of Democratic Services sue.sewell@greenwich.gov.uk 0208 921 5670 Andrew Parker Planning Manager (Major Developments) Andrew.parker@greenwich.gov.uk 020 8921 5875

Simon Thelwell Planning Control Manager (Projects and Compliance) simon.thelwell@havering.gov.uk 01708 432685 London Borough of Haringey Level 6 River Park House 225 High Road Wood Green London N22 8HQ

Martyn Thomas Development & Transport Planning Manager martyn.thomas@havering.gov.uk 01708 432845

020 8489 1400 http://www.haringey.gov.uk/planning London Borough of Hackney Environment and Planning Hackney Service Centre 1 Hillman Street E8 1DY 020 8356 8062 http://www.hackney.gov.uk/planning PO Box Civic Centre, Silver Street Enfield EN1 3XE 020 8379 4419 http://www.enfield.gov.uk/planning Rob Leak Chief Executive Chief.executive@enfield.gov.uk 020 8379 3902 Joanne Woodward Head of Planning Policy Joanne.woodward@enfield.gov.uk 020 8379 3881 Bob Griffiths Assistant Director Planning, Highways & Transportation Bob.griffiths@enfield.gov.uk 020 8379 3676 Andy Higham Head of Development Management Andy.higham@enfield.gov.uk 020 8379 3848

Tim Shields Chief Executive tim.shields@hackney.gov.uk 020 8356 3201 John Allen Assistant Director of Planning and Regulatory Services john.allen@hackney.gov.uk 020 8356 8134 Randall Macdonald Head of Spatial Planning 020 8356 8051

Zoe Collins Head of Regeneration Delivery & Strategic Partnership Zoe.Collins@Hackney.gov.uk

John Comber Chief Executive John.comber@greenwich.gov.uk 020 8921 6426

London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham Hammersmith Town Hall Extension King Street London W6 9JU 020 8748 3020 http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/planning

Pat Cox Head of Policy & Spatial Planning Pat.cox@lbhf.gov.uk 020 8753 5773 John Finlayson Head of Planning Regeneration John.finlayson@lbhf.gov.uk 020 8753 6743 Ellen Whitchurch Head of Development Management ellen.whitchurch@lbhf.gov.uk 020 8753 3484

Mike Hows Assistant Director of Planning mike.hows@greenwich.gov.uk 020 8921 5363

Matin Miah Head of Regeneration & Development matin.miah@lbhf.gov.uk 0208 753 3482

66 74

PlanningininLondon London Planning

Dan Hawthorn Assistant Director for Regeneration Dan.hawthorn@haringey.gov.uk 020 8489 5678

London Borough of Hillingdon Civic Centre, High Street Uxbridge UB8 1UW 01895 250111 www.hillingdon.gov.uk/planning Jean Palmer OBE Deputy Chief Executive and Corporate Director Residents Services jean.palmer@hillingdon.gov.uk 0189 5250622 Nigel Dicker Deputy Director of Residents Services Ndicker@hillingdon.gov.uk 01895 250566

London Borough of Harrow PO Box 37 Civic Centre, Station Road Harrow HA1 2UY

Michael Lockwood Chief Executive leaders.appointments@harrow.gov.uk 020 8863 5611 Caroline Bruce Corporate Director-Environment & Enterprise caroline.bruce@harrow.gov.uk 020 8416 8628 Paul Nichols Divisional Director of Planning paul.nichols@harrow.gov.uk 020 8736 6149

James Rodger Head of Planning and Enforcement james.rodger@hillingdon.gov.uk 01895 250230 Jales Tippell Deputy Director Policy, Highways and Community Engagement jales.tippell@hillingdon.gov.uk 01895 250230

London Borough of Hounslow Civic Centre Lampton Road Hounslow TW3 4DN 020 8583 5555 http://www.hounslow.gov.uk/planning Mary Harpley Chief Executive mary.harpley@hounslow.gov.uk 020 8583 2012

Juliemma McLoughlin Director for Planning juliemma.mcloughlin@lbhf.gov.uk 020 8753 3565

Pippa Hack (Acting) Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Skills Pippa.hack@greenwich.gov.uk 020 8921 5519

Tim Jackson Assistant Director of Transportation

Stephen Kelly Assistant Director for Planning stephen.kelly@haringey.gov.uk

020 8863 5611 www.harrow.gov.uk/planning

Nigel Pallace Chief Executive nigel.pallace@lbhf.gov.uk 020 8753 3000 Royal Borough of Greenwich Council The Woolwich Centre 35 Wellington Street London SE18 6HQ 0208 921 6426 http://www.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/planning

Lyn Garner Director of Regeneration, Planning and Development lyn.garner@haringey.gov.uk 020 8489 4523

Femi Nwanze Head of Development Management femi.nwanze@hackney.gov.uk 020 8356 8061

Sharon Davidson Planning Decisions Manager Sharon.davidson@enfield.gov.uk 020 8379 3841 David B Taylor Transportation Planning David.b.taylor@enfield.gov.uk 020 8379 3576

Nick Walkley Chief Executive nick.walkley@haringey.gov.uk 020 8489 2648

London Borough of Havering Town Hall, Main Road Romford RM1 3BD 01708 433100 https://www.havering.gov.uk/planning Cheryl Coppell Chief Executive cheryl.coppell@havering.gov.uk 01708 432062 Andrew Blake-Herbert Group Director for Community and Resources (Deputy Chief Executive) Andrew.blakeherbert@havering.gov.uk Helen Oakerbee

Brendon Walsh Director of Regeneration, Economic Development and Environment brendon.walsh@hounslow.gov.uk 020 8583 5331 Marilyn Smith Head of Development Management Marilyn.smith@hounslow.gov.uk 020 8583 4994 Ian Rae Head of Regeneration & Spatial Planning ian.rae@hounslow.gov.uk 020 8583 2561

PLANNING ANDENVIRONMENT ENVIRONMENTREFERENCE REFERENCEGUIDE GUIDE PLANNINGAND

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 planning@rbkc.gov.uk www.rbkc.gov.uk/planning www.rbkc.gov.uk/planning Chief Executive Nicholas Holgate chief.executive@rbkc.gov.uk 020 7361 2299 Chief Executive Nicholas GrahamHolgate Stallwood chief.executive@rbkc.gov.uk 020 and 7361 2299 Executive Director of Planning Borough Development Graham.Stallwood@rbkc.gov.uk 020 7361 Graham 2612 Stallwood Executive Director of Planning and Borough Development Rob Krzyszowski Graham.Stallwood@rbkc.gov.uk Planning Policy Team Leader 020 7361 2612 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

www.planninginlondon.com

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.uk 020 8314 020 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) Translation Error.

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

Issue99104 January-March 2018 Issue OCTOBER-DECEMBER 2016 75 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’.

Aman Dalvi OBE Corporate Aman DalviDirector OBE for Development & Renewal Corporate Director for Development & Aman.dalvi@towerhamlets.gov.uk Renewal Aman.dalvi@towerhamleys.gov.uk Owen Owen Whalley and Building Building Control Control Service Service Head Planning and owen.whalley@towerhamlets.gov.uk owen.whalley@towerhamlets.gov.uk 020 020 7364 5314 Paul Buckenham Paul Development Manager Development 020 7364 2502 020 Adele Maher Adele Strategic Planning Manager Strategic Manager 020 7364 5375 020 Jackie Odunoye Jackie Head of Strategy, Regeneration Head Regeneration & & Sustainability, Development Development and and Renewal 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.uk020 020 martin.esom@walthamforest.gov.uk 8496 84964201 4201 Lucy Shomali Lucy Shomali Director of Regeneration & Growth Director of Regeneration & Growth 020 lucy.shomali@walthamforest.gov.uk lucy.shomali@walthamforest.gov.uk 020 8496 6734 8496 6734 Ken Jones Jonesof Housing & Growth Ken Director of Housing & Growth Director 020 8496 Ken.jones@walthamforest.gov.uk Ken.jones@walthamforest.gov.uk 020 8496 5309 5309 Ron Presswell, Design & Conservation Ron Presswell, Design & Conservation 020 Ron.presswell@walthamforest.gov.uk 020 Ron.presswell@walthamforest.gov.uk 8496 6736 8496 6736

London Borough of Waltham London Waltham Forest Forest Town Hall, Town

OTHER ORGANISATIONS Greater London Authority Authority City Hall, The Queen's Walk London SE1 2AA 020 7983 4000 https://www.london.gov.uk/ https://www.london.gov.uk/ Boris Johnson Mayor of London mayor@london.gov.uk 0207 0207 983 983 4000

Colin Wilson Senior Manager, Development Development & & Projects

colin.wilson@london.gov.uk colin.wilson@london.gov.uk020 0207983 7983 4783 Martin 4783 MartinScholar Scholar Strategic (Planning StrategicPlanning PlanningManager Manager (Planning Justin Frameworks) JustinCarr Carr Frameworks) Strategic martin.scholar@london.gov.uk 020 StrategicPlanning PlanningManager Manager martin.scholar@london.gov.uk 020 (Development 7983 (DevelopmentDecisions) Decisions) 79835750 5750 justin.carr@london.gov.uk justin.carr@london.gov.uk020 0207983 7983 4895 Urban 4895 UrbanDesign DesignLondon London Palestra Palestra Graham 197 GrahamClements Clements 197Blackfriars BlackfriarsRoad Road Senior London SeniorStrategic StrategicPlanner Planner LondonSE1 SE18AA 8AA Graham.clements@london.gov.uk Graham.clements@london.gov.uk020 020 020 0207593 75939000 9000 7983 www.urbandesignlondon.com 79834265 4265 www.urbandesignlondon.com Christine ChristineMcGoldrick McGoldrick Strategic StrategicPlanning PlanningManager Manager (Development (DevelopmentPlans) Plans) christine.mcgoldrick@london.gov.uk christine.mcgoldrick@london.gov.uk 020 0207983 79834309 4309

Keep taking your your PiL! PiL!

DCLG, Transport for London, LSE Library, Deloitte Estate, London Councils, Circle 33 Addleshaw Goddard, pglaw, Howard Kennedy, L BReal Ealing, Brockton Capital, Hayes Davidson, Housing Trust, P&O Estates Ltd, DCLG, Greenwich University, Steer Davies Gleave, City ofReal Estate, Newzeye.com, Random House, Transport for London, LSE Library, Deloitte Westminster, British Architectural Library, Delancy, Paul DavisUniversity, & Partners, Bellway London Councils, Circle 33 Housing, P&OCBRE, Estates Ltd, Greenwich Steer Davies Homes,City Jestico & Whiles, London & Architectural Quadrant, Ecology Consultancy Ltd, Tesco Plc, Ramboll, Gleave, of Westminster, British Library, CBRE, Delancy, PDP London, Bellway Harvard Jestico College&Library, Wharf PLC, L B Ecology Islington,Consultancy L B Greenwich, Entec Homes, Whiles,London London & Quadrant, Ltd,Sport TescoEngland, Plc, Ramboll, UK, Berkeley Group, Workspace Bexley, RBK&C, RTPI, LB Bromley,Sport PRP Architects, Harvard College Library, LondonGroup, Wharf LB PLC, L B Islington, L B Greenwich, England, Entec Durrants, British LandWorkspace Company, Group, L B Islington, CBE,RBK&C, GL Hearn, King Holistic, White UK, Berkeley Group, LB Bexley, RTPI, LBSturge, Bromley, PRP Architects, Young Green, SNR Denton, i-Document Solutions, & Hamlins, Montagu Durrants, British Land Company, L B Islington, CBE,Trowers GL Hearn, Holistic,British WhiteLand, Young Green, Evans, Hayes Davidson,Solutions, Precise Media, NLP, B Merton, Cluttons Bircham, TP Dentons, i-Document Trowers & LHamlin, British Land,Planning, MontaguSpeechly Evans, Precise Media, Bennett, The Ebsco, Brockton Capital, The Turley Associates, Munkenbeck & Lichfields, L BLondon Merton,Society, Speechly Bircham, TP Bennett, London Society, Ebsco, Turley, Partners, Terence O'Rourke, AssaelO'Rourke, Architecture, Metropolitan Workshop, PRP, Urban Research, Munkenbeck & Partners, Terence Assael Architecture, Metropolitan Workshop, Urban AMEC,GLA, LCR Stations Property, O'Rourke, Judd Rolfe Planning, Research, AMEC,GLA, LCRand Stations andTerence Property, Terence Rolfe O'Rourke, JuddSouthbank Planning, University, Lurot Brand,Lurot Slaughter May, Alliance Planning, Harvard College Library, Cluttons, Southbank University, Brand,and Slaughter and May, Alliance Planning, Harvard College DPP, Savills, Henley Business Sainsbury's, Hamptons International, Barratt Library, Cluttons, DPP, Savills,School, HenleyGrosvenor, Business School, Grosvenor, Sainsbury's, Hamptons Homes, National Grid,Homes, Network Rail, Foster Partners,Rail, PRP,Foster Gorkana Group, London & International, Barratt National Grid,+Network + Partners, PRP, Gorkana Continental Railways, LCA, Cardiff University, Group, London & Continental Railways, LCA, Indigo Cardiff...University, Indigo ...

... Just some of the firms firms and and organisations organisationswho whohave havetaken takentheir theirPlanning Planning subscription. ONE in London subscription.

ONE YEAR YEAR FOR FORJUST JUST£99. £99.

To subscribe: click on www.planninginlondon.com www.planninginlondon.comor orplease pleasereturn returnthis this is aa licence licence for for 55 copies copiesemailed emailedininPDF PDFformat. format. form. A subscription is Please supply up to 5 email email addresses addresses to toplanninginlondon@mac.com planninginlondon@mac.com

Planning in London

City of Westminster Westminster City Hall 64 Victoria Street, London SW1E 6QP 020 7641 6500 Westminster City Hall Victoria Street, London SW1E 6QP 64 https://www.westminster.gov.uk/planning 020 7641 6500 Charlie Parker, https://www.westminster.gov.uk/planning Chief Executive cparker@westminster.gov.uk Parker, Chief Executive 020 7641 2358 Charlie cparker@westminster.gov.uk 020 7641 2358 John Walker Operational Walker Director Planning Delivery Unit John jwalker2@westminster.gov.uk Operational Director Planning Delivery Unit 020 7641 2519 020 7641 jwalker2@westminster.gov.uk 2519 Barry Smith Operational Smith Director City Planning Barry bsmith@westminster.gov.uk Director City Planning Operational 020 7641 2923 bsmith@westminster.gov.uk 020 7641 2923 Denton BenBen Denton, Executive Director for Growth, Executive Director for Growth, Planning and and Housing Planning Housing bdenton@westminster.gov.uk 020 bdenton@westminster.gov.uk 7641 0203025 7641 3025

info@designforlondon.gov.uk info@designforlondon.gov.uk Department forfor Communities andand Department Communities Local Government Local Government 020 7944 4400 020 7944 4400 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

sponsored byby sponsored

Design Designfor forLondon London City CityHall, Hall, The Walk TheQueen's Queen's Walk More MoreLondon, London, London LondonSE1 SE12AA 2AA

Please oror Pleasecomplete completeand andmail mailororfax faxthe theform formbelow below click and pay with PayPal or or credit card clickSUBSCRIBE SUBSCRIBEatatwww.planninginlondon.com www.planninginlondon.com and pay with PayPal credit card

Magazine of ofthe theYear Year(non-weekly) (non-weekly) International Magazine InternationalBuilding Building Press Press Awards WINNER & finalist Awards WINNER 2007 &2007 finalist 2006 – 2006 2012 –&2012 2016-2017

68 76

Head of Forward Planning and Transportation jstone@wandsworth.gov.uk 020 8871 6628 City of Westminster

HeadofofPlanning, Planning, Policy Strategy Head Policy && Strategy HeadofofBuilding Building Dev Control && Dev Control Head Borough of Wandsworth London London Borough of Wandsworth Hall, Wandsworth High Street TownHall, Wandsworth High Street Town LondonSW18 SW18 2PU 2PU London 020 8871 7620 www.wandsworth.gov.uk/planning 8871 7620 020 www.wandsworth.gov.uk/planning Paul Martin, Chief Executive Paul Martin pmartin@wandsworth.gov.uk Chief Executive pmartin@wandsworth.gov.uk Nick Calder Head of Development Permissions Nick Calder 020 8871 8417 ncalder@wandsworth.gov.uk Head of Development Permissions ncalder@wandsworth.gov.uk 020 8871 8417 Nigel Granger, Development Management East Area Manager Granger Nigel ngranger@wandsworth.gov.uk Development Management East Area 020 8871 8415 Manager 020 8871 ngranger@wandsworth.gov.uk Mark Hunter 8415 Development Management Nine Elms Opportunity Area Manager Hunter Mark mhunter@wandsworth.gov.uk Development Management Nine Elms 020 8871 8418 Opportunity Area Manager 020 8871 mhunter@wandsworth.gov.uk John Stone 8418 Head of Forward Planning and Transportation Stone John jstone@wandsworth.gov.uk 020 8871 6628

I would like toto subscribe from: I would like subscribe from:

Go planninginlondon.com > Subscribe Gototo planninginlondon.com > Subscribe and pay online withwith and pay online Translation Error.

last JulyOctober 2016 2017 lastissue issue98,103 this October 2016 thisissue issue99,104 January 2018

next 100105 January 2017 nextissue issue April 2018 (no(no VAT, payable to Planning in London) I enclose a cheque for £99.00 VAT, payable to Planning in London) I enclose a cheque for £99.00 I am in in advertising in in thethe Advice directory (£300 for for oneone year) I aminterested interested advertising Advice directory (£300 year) Please mymy card £106 (£99+£6.00 for for credit card administration, Pleasedebit debit card £106 (£99+£6.00 administration, no VAT)both VAT inclusive) Card Cardtype: type:

VISA VISA

MASTERCARD MASTERCARD

Card Cardnumber: number: Expiry Expirydate: date:

security no:no: security

Signature: Signature:

Tel:Tel:

Name Firm:on card:

UpUp to 5toEmail addresses: 5 Email addresses:

Fax:

Firm: Card billing address: Card billing address:

Delivery Invoiceaddress addressififdifferent: different:

Post Planning in in London, Studio Petersham, Gorshott, 181181 Petersham Postcheque chequeto:to: Planning London, Studio Petersham, Gorshott, Petersham Road forfor the attention of of Natalie Barratt RoadTW10 TW107AW 7AW the attention Natalie Barratt

SHAPING LONDON | SIR TERRY FARRELL

Daylight rules and placemaking

Sir Terry Farrell CBE

In August 1962, Jane Jacobs rallied approximately 100 protestors to march down a drizzly Manhattan street. Jacobs’ crew were campaigning against the Lower Manhattan Expressway dubbed, “LOMEX”. The brainchild of Robert Moses, LOMEX was a ten-lane highway set to plough through the tight, narrow streets of New York’s now cherished Little Italy and SoHo neighbourhoods. The scheme was similar to Sir Patrick Abercrombie’s 1943 plan that saw a motorway ring road, blindly placed around London. That plan actually came two years after Moses’ first proposals across the Atlantic, yet despite Abercrombie’s failure, Moses continued to push his vision, submitting updated drafts until Jacobs’ intervention.

For those who have had the privilege to visit these New York destinations, you will know of the Victorian eclecticism that abounds, particularly in SoHo, where the delightfully decorative vernacular is found dancing down Prince Street, Wooster Street, and others.

Moses’ plans would have provided residents with much more daylight than they originally had. The streets were wider, and the buildings were taller. The areas Jacobs was calling to be saved, by comparison, were darker and less open. However, the reason she won her battle was that these places fostered a genuine sense of community – a phenomenon so strong that it convinced others to join her cause and challenge the authorities; there was light at

www.planninginlondon.com

the end of the tunnel after all.

That said, today we have become obsessed by daylight, a dogma which is ironically unhealthy in this context. It could be argued that the places she saved from Moses would not satisfy current Vertical Sky Component (VSC) regulations in the U.K. The same could be said with more certainty about places closer to home, notably Covent Garden and London’s own Soho. These famed, characterful districts are full of conservation areas and have become integral London destinations.

These daylighting stipulations can at times conflict with density requirements. Density doesn’t have to mean building up, it can mean packing in, but this requires applying common sense to VSC rules. In the current planning climate, if you do build up, you are inevitably forced to widen streets, resulting in places more inviting to drivers than those on foot and subsequently bereft of urban cohesion.

That isn’t to say VSC regulations should be completely disregarded either. To use New York as a precedent once again, we can look to Exchange Place in the Financial District. In this dark corner of Downtown Manhattan, sunlight only gets through three percent of the time during Summer, while the slender, Eastwardrunning street lies in shadow for the whole of Spring, Autumn, and Winter.Though not applicable to that extreme case, angled and oriel windows are just a couple of simple, yet effective tac- >>>

Issue 104 January-March 2018

77

SHAPING LONDON | SIR TERRY FARRELL

tics that could bring mid-rise projects on narrow streets up to speed with VSC requirements. Challenges like this would breed further innovation and ultimately provide us with a more diverse (within reason) streetscape as well.

In Revisiting Postmodernism, which I wrote with Adam Nathaniel Furman, I mention the urban plan that was designed for the Charing Cross (Embankment Place) frontage. For this project Farrells re-installed lampposts — based on the originals — that had been removed when streets had been widened, essentially narrowing the street again, but also animating it in the process. The east façade of the main air rights building over Charing Cross station looks onto Villiers Street. This thoroughfare subsequently became the first shared street in London used by both vehicles and pedestrians; it is not a wide street by any means, but it is busy and well-used.

Another reason for Villers Street’s success is that it gives pedestrians power to cross the road at any time. People don’t want pedways or underpasses, they want to continue their journey as easily as possible and the best way to do that is to break down the car-pedestrian hierarchy and implement street-level crossings.

It is this form of urban space-positivity that contrasts with former modernist urban culture orthodoxy of objects in a landscape, as seen with some of the post-war planning in Britain This approach was based on Jacobsian urbanism which derives from “organised complexity” – a term she coined herself and draws on the pedestrian-friendly streets more commonplace in Europe than in the U.S. Though Jacobs’ campaign was more than half-a-century ago, it is still relevant today and is a testament to the power of genuine places’ longevity.

Perhaps it also worth mentioning a more recent campaign effort. In 2012 plans were made to significantly alter part of London’s Southbank. These came after numerous changes which I had proposed in the 1980s. Different to the residents of Little

Italy and SoHo, this inspired a community of skateboarders to take action and lay claim to a space they believed was a piece London’s cultural heritage and belonged to the public realm (and ultimately skateboarders). They won and now a group, named Long Live Southbank (LLSB)3, want to use that momentum to make changes of their own, building on the culture that has been created there. LLSB’s scheme represents a refreshing mode of community-led design based on a ground-up methodology. As with such approaches, however, LLSB relies on crowdfunding to finance its plan, which already has approval.. n

PREVIOUS PAGE: A study for which daylighting is factored, shows how balconies and higher ground floor spaces can work with narrow thoroughfares ABOVE: Villiers Street spans the east facade of Charing Cross and is a well-used thoroughfare, open to cars and pedestrians.

LEFT: Villiers Street spans the east facade of Charing Cross and is a well-used thoroughfare, open to cars and pedestrians. (images Courtesy Farrells)

78

Planning in London

ADVICE 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

www.planninginlondon.com

Issue 104 January-March 2018

71 79

Save 10% using code

341PIL

-

Waterfront’s 6th Annual

1DWLRQDOO\ 6LJQLðFDQW

Infrastructure Projects Forum

2018

Weds 7th February - Thurs 8th February 2018 | etc.venues - St Paul’s, London A practical guide to gaining a DCO and NSIP delivery: successfully completing pre-application, examination and DCO implementation Featuring speakers from Simone Wilding, Head of National Infrastructure Case Management, The Planning Inspectorate Christopher Nunn, Consents and Communications Manager, National Grid Anna Pickering, Regional Investment Programme/ Statutory Processes, Highways England Jon Banard, Project Manager, :\ɈVSR *V\U[` *V\UJPS Angus Walker, Partner; Chair, Bircham Dyson Bell, National Infrastructure Planning Association

T: 0207 067 1597 E: conference@thewaterfront.co.uk W: www.thewaterfront.co.uk