PLANNING IN LONDON ISSUE 106 JULY-SEPTEMBER 2018

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

Issue 106 July–September 2018

www.planninginlondon.com

REGULARS: NEIL PARKYN: What’s the use(s)? p22 ANDY ROGERS: Once more, with meaning p40 CLIPBOARD p27 ¡PILLO! p31 SIR TERRY FARRELL p73

THE RAYNSFORD REVIEW – a Judicious Review? Simon Ricketts on the interim report – and Andrew Rogers on its launch: pages 13-14; Josie Warden on manufacturing: page 48; Luke Tozer on council housing: page 56; Jonathan Bower and Sara Wex on Land Value Capture: page 63; Amanda Balson and Heidi Duncan on Build to Rent: page 58; Björn Conway on modular housing: page 53 THE ESSENTIAL GUIDE TO DEVELOPMENT IN THE CAPITAL

Please subscribe: page 72

34(25"#$"#26,(7')28(9:)(2 2

;<2=(>)(?9(,2@A;B2 C"#D:*2E:!!F2G($25'"#2=H.:,(2

Whether you’re a confirmed Brexiteer or a devout Remainer, you’ll agree that Brexit is probably the most significant event to affect London in a generation.

That’s why the London Society – working with the OnLondon website – is debating the topic on 13 September.

Book tickets now at the ‘early bird’ rate – just £5 for members of the Society and £10 for non-members. Visit www.londonsociety.org.uk/events for details.

Confirmed speakers include Labour peer and former government minister Lord Adonis, who has described London as the effective “capital of Europe” and warned that its fall from such glory could be swift and sudden.

Taking the opposite view will be senior London Conservative Daniel Moylan, an experienced former councillor and adviser to Boris Johnson during his time as London Mayor.

London stood out against most of the rest of England by voting strongly for the UK to remain a member of the European Union and Sadiq Khan, has repeatedly warned that the consequences of Brexit will be bad for the capital. But is he right?

London’s economy is famously resilient and adaptable and seems unlikely to lose to its global appeal and identity any time soon. Might leaving the EU actually enable London to become stronger and even more outward looking?

Chaired by Dave Hill of OnLondon, our debate hopes to generate more light than heat. Come along and listen to the arguments on 13 September.

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

CONTENTS

page 5 LEADERS Calm down, dear; The need for a shadow planning system; Aphrodisiac planning 7 PICTURE FEATURE New vision for Stratford Waterfront: Bob Allies

JUDICIOUS REVIEW?: Simon Ricketts page 13 & THE RAYNSFORD REVIEW: Andrew Rogers page 14

10 OPINIONS 10 New new town developments: David Churchill 11 A sculpture for the UK’s housing crisis: Richard Hyams 13 Judicious Review?: Simon Ricketts 14 The Raynsford Review: Andrew Rogers 15 Housing as an investment: Jay Das 17 Development sentiment: Gavin Kieran 18 PLANNING PERFORMANCE 85% of minor planning applications approved within 8 weeks, the same figure as for the preceding quarter 22 NEIL PARKYN What’s the use(s)?

24 LETTERS From Andrew Catto; Michael Bach, London Forum of Amenity and Civic Societies; Stephen Heath 27 CLIPBOARD 31 ¡PILLO!

SITTING COMFORTABLY? – ¡PILLO! page 31

32 LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM Planning for small sites, the impact of Crossrail & of the draft NPPF 40 ANDY ROGERS Once more, with meaning 42 HEALTHY NEW COMMUNITIES Michael Chang, Chris Naylor, Amanda Hill-Dixon and Delia Beck 48 MANUFACTURING Made in London: shaping the city’s manufacturing sector: Josie Warden 50 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE How will the way we navigate our towns and cities change?: João Fernandes

LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM page 32

www.planninginlondon.com

53 MODULAR HOUSING Making moves with modular: Björn Conway

Continues next page >>>

Issue 106 July-September 2018

3

CONTENTS CONTINUED

56 COUNCIL HOUSING Wandle Road, Croydon: Luke Tozer

>>>

58 BUILD TO RENT Policy starts to recognise value of Build to Rent: Amanda Balson and Heidi Duncan

LAND VALUE CAPTURE AND WHY IT MATTERS: Jonathan Bower and Sara Wex page 63

61 MINERALS AND SAFEGUARDING Safeguarding of London’s minerals infrastructure: David Payne 63 LAND VALUE CAPTURE Land value capture and why it matters: Jonathan Bower and Sara Wex 67 BOOKS ‘Destination Architecture’ reviewed by Andrew Catto 68 COMING SOON ‘Making Massive Small Change’ by Kelvin Campbell 69 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REFERENCE GUIDE Contacts in all London boroughs 72 SUBSCRIPTION FORM 73 SIR TERRY FARRELL The streets we choose: Katerina Karaga of Farrells 77 ADVICE – Consultants and services

ISSN 1366-9672 (PRINT) ISSN 2053-4124 (DIGITAL) Issue 106 july–September 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

THE STREETS WE CHOOSE: Katerina Karaga page 73 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

Calm down, dear Maybe sacrificing a bit of growth for sovereignty will do London good

Looking down on the City of London from the Shard one has to question the quantity and pace of development. And that's what is just visible above ground.

Sarah Sands, former editor of the Evening Standard, writing in the FT recently, refers to the Prime Minister’s idea of ‘rebalancing the economy’. She comments that the correction may happen without her intervention; that London's defence used to be that regional boats would rise on the back of its economic success: “Another way of rebalancing is for London to sink a little. The provinces are basking in sunshine and literary festivals while young creative people I know head for Liverpool, Glasgow and Hull."

On the radio recently Merryn Somerset Webb was listening to a West End estate agent bemoaning the softening at the top end of London’s housing market. She commented "What's not to like about that? Housing will be a bit more affordable".

At every level in London the pressure is on with the rising population, a booming economy which barely paused for the economic crisis, and even with an increasing out-migration of young families the population has recently risen from 8.1 to 8.8m people.

Without suggesting that we bring back the Location of Offices Bureau and deliberately depopulate London or undermine its economy, perhaps it's time for a pause for breath and to plan for quality (and tranquility) rather than quantity. n

The need for a shadow planning system Why do we need devices like PiP, brown land registers, and PD freedoms?

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

A study by the Association for Public Service Excellence into permitted development rights (PD) and in particular the right to change office space into housing, describes PD is as being "on such a scale as to be in effect a shadow planning system, with no opportunity to secure decent quality housing or contributions for education or even even basic children's play space".

Another study by the RICS, which visited 568 buildings across the country, concludes that only 30 per cent of units delivered through PD meet national space standards.

These are serious concerns that need to be put into a bigger context. First, at a time of economic recession, when these PD rights were introduced, and at a time of a severe housing shortage especially at the lower cost end, permitted development rights have turned out to provide something like 30 per cent of the additional housing achieved and for some local authorities, over half.

This freedom brought with it some collateral damage, be it pressure on small businesses in lowcost accommodation to relocate and in terms of some unusually small dwellings. The benefits included the release of value in terms of better land use, the upgrading of buildings and the provision of relatively low cost housing.

How to mitigate such damage? Well first, standards are objective criteria and therefore much more efficiently handled through the Building Regulations. Time and again it is clear that the building regulation process, which does bite on permitted development, should be able to deal with minimum standards across the board and relieve the planning process and avoid its temptation to tinker with such standards.

It should not be forgotten that the ‘nay-sayers’ were shouting that nobody would bother with this permitted development right, then that the take-up was negligible, and that the whole thing was pointless. Not quite what they are saying now.

And they haven't learned have they? Planning in Principle (PiP) was given a big analysis in Planning which asserts that there has been a very slow take up of this new process and quotes experts saying

www.planninginlondon.com

Issue 106 July-September 2018

5

>>>

LEADERS

>>>

that this is not likely to change. The article was published on the 6th of July but the PiP regulations were only published on the 15th of June! Is this a repeat case of the system predicting what it wishes for regardless of the evidence?

Why do we need devices like PiP, brown land registers, and PD freedoms anyway? The answer is that the planning process has become so sclerotic and complex and that reform and simplification tend to do the opposite. So the politicians in frustration seem to be subverting the system by introducing a shadow alternative.

If this sounds unlikely, just compare what is required to make an outline planning application today with the original process: a red line on a map, a one-page form and a postage stamp.

Because an outline application is no longer any such thing PiP has been introduced to re-establish the ability on small sites to confirm the principle of development.

Maybe a shadow planning system is not such a bad idea. n

Aphrodisiac planning There is a revival in the realisation that local spatial planning, at all scales, is the necessary foundation for good placemaking

*triggered by President Clinton’s enforcement of ‘subprime’ lending

6

Planning in London

Political consensus and planning practice for 40 years have been built on two cardinal policies – fiscal rectitude administered with an iron grip by the centralist Treasury, limiting the autonomy of local authorities, and decreasing emphasis on municipal spatial planning in favour of market forces and quasiautonomous development corporations.

The ‘Coalition’ government, and two Tory administrations have had to manage the consequences of systemic failure in the banking system* resulting in Austerity, that has also had a severe impact on planning department capabilities.

Yet we have the ubiquitous neologisms – placemaking and good growth – both of which require local spatial planning, cash and resources to function beneficially for the good of all, not just the few.

Inequalities that have arisen from the “failures of success” of neo-liberal, centralised economic policies, have fuelled the Brexit vote, especially in the under-invested North and have eradicated political consensus.

What Cameron’s administration did introduce was Going for Growth fiscal policies (whatever happened to the Big Society?) that require councils to approve new development to retain more of the Council Tax and Business Rate income generated from this.

This has encouraged London boroughs to hunt, with increasing urgency, through their property portfolios (the true ‘great estates’), including council housing holdings, to find new opportunities.

You can’t go to a built environment conference without developers hymning the virtues of placemaking, public-private partnership and community – a chorus of spot-changed leopards. Meanwhile the High Street is dwindling as technology and the inefficient business rating system batter it daily.

Housing is nowhere near delivering the 66,000 homes target set by the Mayor – and way too low to tackle a 40-year backlog. Londoners are migrating out again as prices rise in areas where they might have stood a chance of affording a home.

In some places, however, big and small spatial planning is making a comeback. Leaving aside the frustrations for cash-strapped planners administering complex development control functions, there is a revival in the realisation that local spatial planning, at all scales, is the necessary foundation for good placemaking which generates the long-term value the market needs to consider investing and the resources to address inequality.

A big issue for the next generation of placemaking, in the outer boroughs, down the Old Kent Road in Southwark and Lewisham, on Greenwich Peninsula, in Wembley, in Havering – in all these careworn places, is how to flex outdated yardsticks like Use Classes to accommodate rapidly evolving occupancy. Does Build to Rent really need its own use class? Should we be more flexible about High Street uses, Permitted Development Rights, space standards, and a host of other constraints. And on the municipal side of the equation, should we also be investing a lot more in public sector-managed, spatial planning at a strategic and local level, in partnership with private sector promoters?

We need a coherent, whole-industry response to convince whoever is in No.10 and No.11, of the need to enable rapid change through effective, flexible planning.

Planning may be a prophylactic, but it should also be an aphrodisiac. n

PICTURE FEATURE | STRATFORD WATERFRONT

New vision for Stratford Waterfront

The addition of a fourth institution and the guidance from the Mayor on the interpretation of the London View Management Framework (LVMF) gave us the rare, and welcome, challenge to comprehensively re-think the Stratford Waterfront project. The design of each building, their location, plot size and adjacencies are all new as is the configuration of the new public external spaces that they stand within.

That said, we have retained the inviting, accessible and porous quality of the earlier design with clearly legible public buildings that address the Park on one side and bring new life and visual interest to the streetscape along Carpenters Rd on the other. V&A East straddles the intersection of new routes at the centre of the site; arranged to its south are the London College of Fashion (LCF), a building for the BBC – the new institution, and Sadler’s Wells East, now facing the London Aquatics Centre and the arrival from Stratford. To the north

www.planninginlondon.com

is the housing component, now an ensemble of four shorter buildings.

At the heart of the project’s intent is the need for it to engage - to be open and relevant to the local community. This translates directly into a need for the masterplan, and the buildings within it, to connect with their physical surroundings rather than standing aside from them. To achieve this, a key principle of the masterplan is that a ‘common ground’ should flow continuously from the Park up to and into the public buildings, inviting easy colonisation by people, nature and culture.

In purposeful contrast to the formality of arrival and threshold of many traditional cultural buildings, we have explored ways to make the buildings relaxed and welcoming and remove barriers to entry - covered outdoor rooms; thick walls with built in seating and displays; open foyers, cafes and colonnades all enable people to be ‘within’ the buildings before actually entering them.

The buildings form a terrace which, while compact and efficient in its use of land, is deliberately relaxed in its composition. A single megastructure or an overly uniform group of buildings would have risked appearing fortress-like and alienating while likely struggling to accommodate the varied range of uses. Our aim, instead, is to create a living piece of city whose diversity, complexity and richness matches its surroundings; that will welcome people in through routes that extend far beyond the site; and whose texture of distinct, characterful buildings reflects both the institutions’ and London’s energy and personality. At East Bank, culturally dynamic organisations will become neighbours for the first time. Our masterplan maximises the potential of these close adjacencies, in a way that is natural and dynamic, rather than rigid and prescriptive, to explore the opportunities for permeability, interaction and collaboration at the interfaces. >>>

Issue 106 July-September 2018

7

STRATFORD WATERFRONT | BOB ALLIES

level, the L-shaped foyer is fully glazed on the two public sides giving access and views into the café, bar and community dance space. At the upper levels, six dance studios look out over the park and city. It is a robust building of natural coloured brick and cast clay tiles, metal windows and concrete structure. It has an open welcoming character; a place of creativity, making and performance.

The building for the BBC is a working building where the studio for the BBC Symphony Orchestra is expressed within the composition as a large weathered steel volume, recalling the industrial heritage of the site prior to the Olympics, around which wrap the support spaces. These similarly demonstrate the building's unique programme as artists' rooms project out over the street and parts of the building step back in response to neighbours or to create garden terraces.

The largest building on the site, the London College of Fashion, is a place of education, research and enterprise for a

>>>

Bob Allies is a partner in Allies and Morrison

8

Planning in London

East London has a rich heritage of making; the site itself was formerly a site of manufacture before the historic buildings were re-appropriated as studios and workshops. It is a key principle that the buildings’ materiality and character should reflect this making heritage; be robust, durable and crafted; and explore opportunities for innovative pre-fabrication, onsite experimentation and artistic commissions. We set ourselves the challenge to make all the buildings embrace the concept of ‘casting’, whether it be concrete, glass, metal, brick or ceramic, resulting in a palette of warm, earthy tones. And like factories of the past, each of the buildings will have their names cast in them, proudly proclaiming their presence. This approach to materiality and craft conveys permanence and robustness, and offers a contrast to the glass-and-steel of neighbouring developments.

Each building though is unique. Sadler’s Wells is the first in the terrace of new civic buildings which face the waterfront and Carpenters Road. Its end position gives it a third public front onto the F10 bridge. The saw-tooth form of the dance studio roofs gives the building a distinctive and recognisable roofline. Along Carpenter’s Road the sculpted brick mass of the auditorium/ fly tower has presence and weight. At podium

large cohort of students and staff. Conceived as a 21st century workshop, its design is inspired by the 19th century mill buildings common to many industrial cities - outwardly simple, unpretentious and robust while capable of containing multiple complex and process-driven internal arrangements that are continually susceptible to change. At the heart of the building is a dramatic internal courtyard crossed by stairs linking spaces for exchange. The College's elevations are characterised by the day-lit and naturally ventilated workshops around its perimeter with tall, factory-like steel framed windows set between textured pre-cast concrete columns.

With the V&A’s archival spaces moving across the park to Here/East, it has opened up the opportunity to create an expressive gallery building for V&A East. Its distinctive angular form contains free galleries and public spaces at its lower levels with a ticketed gallery above. The museum sits at the crossroads of pedestrian routes, at the centre of the multi-layered terraced landscape. The public has access to all five floors, from the café at Waterfront Square up through the gallery floors to the roof terrace overlooking the Park. The outer skin of the structure is crafted as a three-dimensional folded composition, a complex form cast in concrete, with scored lines drawn across its faceted surface.

Beyond the V&A building is a residential neighbourhood of four towers – the tallest at the prow of the site, visible from afar, whose large scale openings and stepping form are set as counterpoint to the group of three simpler, refined towers adjacent. There is intimacy with mews-scaled entrances for residents off the main routes of Carpenters Rd and the Waterfront.

Around the outwardly facing perimeter at ground level, spaces are carved into the buildings which we hope will become animated by bespoke retail offer accommodating a number of uses to appeal to all.

Throughout, this has been a deeply collaborative process.

The masterplan is authored by all four practices informed by extensive consultation with LLDC, the institutions, occupiers and the public. Each practice retains principle authorship for individual buildings, alternating across the scheme in a sort of back-and-forth dialogue. Allies and Morrison is lead architect for LCF, BBC and three of the residential buildings; O’Donnell +

www.planninginlondon.com

Tuomey, Sadler’s Wells, the V&A and the northern residential building; Camps Felip Arquitecturia the new footbridge to the International Quarter London to the north; and LDA Design the public realm. But across it all, we are working completely hand in glove. We are co-located as one team and are very much enjoying working together in this way. This commission is, and continues to be, a true privilege. n

PHOTOS CLOCKWISE FROM LEFT: V&A, the Waterfront, Sadler's Wells and University of the Arts Credits: Allies and Morrison and Ninety90

Issue 106 July-September 2018

9

OPINION: NEW NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS | DAVID CHURCHILL

New new town developments New development corporations have the potential to increase housing delivery in the medium to long term says David Churchill The Government’s introduction of regulations for the creation of locally led New Town Development Corporations have been ushered in to kick-start a new era of new town and garden village building.

However, this now popular trend amongst local planning authorities isn’t a recent phenomenon with a number of at-scale developments focused on creating comprehensive new communities already planned or underway over the last couple of decades.

Regardless, the creation of new Development Corporations has the potential to increase housing delivery in the medium to long term. They will create a focal point that facilitates collaboration between various departments and organisations at a local, regional and national level. If structured properly, these locally-led Development Corporations can simplify the decision-making process for projects. This is critical given the size and scale of the projects in question, with delivery likely to span numerous political cycles at both a local and national level.

The main change to the 1981 New Towns Act, and the reason Government hopes it will be popular, is to make the Development Corporations directly accountable to the local authorities who establish them, rather than the Secretary of State. The delivery model from here isn’t set within legislation, though is largely anticipated to follow the master-developer route. This model is one to be encouraged, having a single entity with the ability to take a ‘bigger picture’ view means that Development Corporations can promote a coordinated approach by assisting with land assembly – calling on CPO powers where necessary – Barking Riverside

10

Planning in London

and align strategic infrastructure to the delivery of housing, employment and community facilities.

But how far does, and should, the locally-led concept go? Experience has shown local communities are equally sceptical of the ability of their local authorities to deliver these projects as they are (rightly or wrongly) of the development industry as a whole. Acting as a reasoned and reliable local growth facilitator would be a fine achievement. Requiring all parties to support all aspects of a scheme in an area is clearly an unrealistic proposition, so locally-led must be proportionate.

Whilst centrally sourced funding will be available, it is crucial an open and active approach is taken to partnership arrangements for delivery. It is important the Treasury, when agreeing borrowing levels with potential Oversight Authorities, ensures requests for funding is supported by a robust business case, with it demonstrated that all possible measures to utilise investment from the private sector is taken. If done correctly, this will incentivise the creation of publicprivate partnerships, which will ensure that Development Corporations don’t place undue burden on an already stretched public purse. Whilst the public sector will maintain control over the projects, the private sector needs some protection or investment won’t come forward in the way envisaged.

One of the main criticisms of such proposals is that the skills just aren’t out there, with the UK not having developed new towns for generations, this simply isn’t true. Whilst not on the scale of a Milton Keynes, high quality, comprehensively planned new community projects being delivered across the coun-

David Churchill is a partner with Carter Jonas

try. Urban & Civic has a valued place in the market as a leading master-developer, evidenced by the quality of development being brought forward with its partners at Alconbury Weald. L&Q, at Barking Riverside, has delivered award-winning design whilst creating truly mixed-tenure communities alongside significant social and strategic infrastructure.

The creation of long-term stewardship models, a central feature within the new regulations, have also successfully been successfully established within new community projects. At Barking Riverside, a Community Interest Company (CIC) was set-up at the start of development, incorporating developer, council, and local community representatives. The CIC will inherit common parts of the estate for the benefit of the community, this involves maintaining the estate, promoting and organising community events and generating estate income. Similar models have been established by Bourneville at its garden village, Lightmoor. This has taken influence from the highly praised original stewardship of Bourneville in Birmingham. In an alternative model, the Land Trust takes the stewardship and management of common spaces funded by a service charge levied on new development. Whilst not in community ownership, this creates, in perpetuity, high quality spaces that help establish a legacy position.

Used properly these models can deliver the high quality large-scale developments that the Government is seeking to deliver through Development Corporations. There is the appetite and skill-set within the wider development industry to deliver these projects, but it is imperative local authorities who create Development Corporations provide the right environment to allow this to happen. Strong public leadership will be crucial in oversight and regulatory, and even direct public sector delivery should be encouraged; however, an open approach to partnerships and tapping into the strengths of all sectors will be the key to ensuring the legacy of this generation of new towns is a positive one.” n

OPINION: MODULAR HOUSING | RICHARD HYAMS

A sculpture for the UK’s housing crisis Modular housing embodies architecture’s evolution to become something both creative and considered says Richard Hyams

Richard Hyams is cofounder and CEO of architectural practice astudio

The UK is in the midst of a chronic housing crisis, with rising rent prices, falling wages and a severe labour skills shortage leaving housing construction stagnant and properties financially out of reach for many. With the housing sector contributing to economic inequality in this country, an innovative solution to this crisis is urgently needed.

At a time when 105,000 new affordable houses need to be built every year, modular housing is one potential solution to the lack of affordable housing in the UK. Modular homes are cost-effective, scalable, sustainable and efficient to build. Using design for manufacture and modern methods of assembly, modular homes can be built to high quality more efficiently than traditional practices.

At astudio, we take a proprietary approach to modular housing, which revolves around on-site assembly and producing a unique standard ‘chassis’, giving us the ability to design, manufacture, supply and install volumetric offsite manufactured homes. This also allows continuous and repetitive production that reduces costs, time and defects and has environmental benefits, including low carbon and energy usage through the new use of forms of renewable energy along with heat recovery systems.

We took this approach to creating our sculpture, POP.U.LATE, which was chosen this year for inclusion in the Royal Academy of Arts’ prestigious Summer Exhibition. Created over a three week period, the sculpture symbolises the impact offsite manufacturing could make in tackling the UK’s housing crisis.

We created the innovative and abstract sculpture from 3D printed modular units, designed to replicate an offsite modulated and prefabricated housing system. Constructed with six types of unit, stacked in different orientations, the design stands >>>

www.planninginlondon.com

Issue 106 July-September 2018

11

MODULAR HOUSING | RICHARD HYAMS

>>> at two meters high – incorporating the equivalent of 150 homes in a range of one-bed, two-bed and three-bed apartments.

The efficiency and speed with which the design was made, using the latest CAD/CAM software and 3D printing, mirrors the ease with which homes can be engineered using a modular approach. The totem-style design is symbolic of the key advantages that come with utilising existing space so that people can access property in dense, popular urban areas by building upwards.

In the UK today, there are 1.7 million families, comprising 4.5 million people, waiting to be allocated an affordable home. Currently, housing construction of any type in the UK is being restricted by a severe labour skills shortage. An ageing workforce and a mass exodus of workers due to Brexit is limiting construction activity, while increasing labour costs are making affordable housing financially unattractive for construction companies. This means demand is not being met.

This critical shortage of affordable housing is worsened still by legislative red-tape and landowner opposition. The construction of luxury develop-

12 Planning in London

ments over affordable ones is being encouraged due to landowners wanting to achieve the best possible value for their plot, while local planning authorities remain reluctant to grant planning permissions, wrongly perceiving that modular builds lack the requisite design quality and aesthetics.

These restrictions mean that modular’s potential to help ease the housing crisis is not being tested. Today’s modular homes are not yesterday’s prefabs; they are modern, evolved and sustainable.

Some councils are already becoming more welcoming toward modular, and attitudes could be changing – albeit slowly. For example, Wolverhampton City Council is delivering 23,000 modular homes as part of a pilot scheme and in London, Lewisham Council has plans for a 25-home

modular social rent development and at astudio, we are undertaking our first two modular sites for a forward-thinking council in Londont.

Modular housing embodies architecture’s evolution to become something both creative and considered. At astudio, we believe architects have a duty beyond the strict world of architecture – to design solutions to help address some of society’s largest housing, social, and environmental issues. It is that motive, of trying to help foster a more equal and just society, which lies behind POP.U.LATE. n

OPINION: THE RAYNSFORD REVIEW | SIMON RICKETTS

Judicious Review?

The Raynsford Review concludes that planning is in a worse state than it has been for 75 years.

It is an impressive and illuminating piece of work says Simon Ricketts What do we think about the interim report published by the Raynsford Review – Planning 2020: Interim report of the Raynsford review of Planning in England May 2018? The review was announced last year, instigated by the Town and Country Planning Association “to identify how the Government can reform the English planning system to make it fairer, better resourced and capable of producing quality outcomes, while still encouraging the production of new homes.”

The review’s chairman, Nick Raynsford, is the right person for the role. His professional life inside and outside Parliament has focused on planning and housing issues.

It was perhaps a brave initiative, After all what governmental appetite is there for further significant reform of the planning system and what hope is there for any recommendations without endorsement from the major political parties? Indeed, the Labour party subsequently announced its own review of the planning system. What is the role of any fundamental review of the planning system outside any wider political vision? A “final round of feedback” is sought by 16 July 2018.

The 71 page document is strong on the evolution of the modern planning system from 1947, previous reviews and on summarising the current system. It recounts the numerous public events and meetings held by the review team and the 197 submissions of evidence received, before setting out seven “emerging policy themes“, nine “basic questions which define the direction of reform” and, provisionally, nine “propositions for a new planning system“.

The conclusion of the analysis in the work so far is that planning is “at a historically low ebb“. It is in a worse state than it has been for 75 years and that “the last thing that is needed is more short-term tinkering with the nuts and bolts. Instead, what is required is a deep and hard look at the fundamentals – what should be the purpose of planning, how can it best be structured to deliver the outcomes that the country needs, and how can all parties be engaged most constructively in the process?”

You begin to see the breadth and ambition of the project. But if wholesale change is to be prompted by a process that is not sponsored by govern-

www.planninginlondon.com

ment or government-in-waiting, there is a huge job of work to be done by the review panel between now and the final report, which is to be published in the Autumn for the party conferences.

First, avoid generalities. Set out with quantified evidence why and where the planning system is not delivering. What detailed points were made in the responses and do they reflect the views of all participants in the planning process?

Secondly, bring the issues to life. The interim review in tone is part academic, part old-fashioned tub-thumping, empty of people, empty of place. If you want to see how to do it, read The Secret Barrister’s devastatingly detailed critique of the modern criminal justice system.

Thirdly, set the problems and gripes that we have

The review was instigated by the TCPA “to identify how the Government can reform the English planning system to make it fairer, better resourced and capable of producing quality outcomes, while still encouraging the production of new homes.” with our planning system in context. The planning system may appear at times and in places to be on its knees, or dysfunctional in the way that it operates. But in comparison with areas of public administration, whisper it quietly, it may not be so bad. I have practised under every iteration of the planning system since 1985. If there was a golden age, it was before then I assure you. And yet, by and large, outcomes are fair (if slow), people have their say, development happens or doesn’t happen. Let’s also set our system in an international context – how is our English system performing as compared to the rest of the United Kingdom or Europe?

Fourthly, recognise and reflect on the inherent contradictions. The interim report talks of giving the public a greater say in decision-making but then of a new commitment to meeting people’s basic needs such as the right to a home and of the “deployment of modernised Development Corporations to deal with particularly demanding issues such as flood risk, economic renewal, and population change“. It talks of simplified planning laws but then of a four tier system of neighbourhood, local, regional and national alongside development corporations and of

Simon Ricketts is a partner in Town Legal LLP

new interventions to share land values.

Fifthly, give appropriate emphasis to the need to encourage the production of new homes, specifically referred to in the remit of the review. So far I see little in the interim report that would give that encouragement. Indeed, the document strongly criticises the current permitted development right to convert office uses to residential, without any detailed analysis of whether the disbenefits do indeed outweigh the benefit acknowledged in the report (between 86,665 and 95,045 units delivered between 2010 and 2017).

Sixthly, explain how we are going to get from here to there. The document reports the planning system as having “been in an almost constant state of flux over the past decade and a half” but how would we reform the system to Version Raynsford without equivalent upheavals? And if we assume that there is no prospect of wholesale change within the shelf life of the report, what might be less ambitious, but still helpful, interventions?

Seventhly, acknowledge that the next ten years will see enormous changes, whether economicpolitical (Brexit, possibly), social (how we live, work, shop) and technological (spatial implications but also the changes that plantech will bring to the very processes of planning and public engagement).

Despite my carping, the Raynsford interim report is an impressive and illuminating piece of work but until there is a very different political climate (with the time and power to think about big, complicated changes for the public good – and even then town and country planning should take its place in the queue), we plainly will need to carry on making the best of the current system.

It creaks, but it isn’t broken. Of course, at the very least, consolidation of the legislation would be helpful, but at present even that seems an impractical dream. n See report next page>>>

Issue 106 July-September 2018

13

REPORT: THE RAYNSFORD REVIEW | ANDREW ROGERS

The English planning system needs a well-articulated USP As Nick Raynsford explained at its launch, the interim review has found a plethora of conundrums, problems and challenges, with very little in the way of solutions. Andrew Rogers reports On 15th May, Nicholas Raynsford, President of the Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA), launched his interim review of the planning system at the House of Lords and later at the TCPA, along with Hugh Ellis (Director of Policy).

The reason for an interim review - the full report is expected to be ready at the end of 2018 - is apparently to flush out the wide variations of opinion and aspiration for a better planning system in England.

Indeed, as Nick Raynsford explained, the review has found a plethora of conundrums, problems and challenges, with very little in the way of solutions.

The only common ground identified by the review is a wide dissatisfaction with the present system as voiced by all those concerned with its operation and effects.

His presentation identified the core finding that there is no legal definition of the planning system or proper explanation of its purpose. This was underlined by many of the questions and comments formulated by those present at the launch.

The English planning system, in summary, desperately needs a sensible and well-articulated USP. The interim report itself is an excellent publication that sets out very clearly not only the disparate nature of the planning system, but also the reasons why it has got into such a muddle that most people believe it is no longer fit for purpose - whatever that purpose is.

The document summarises the post-war history There is a body of opinion that questions whether planning should be democratic at all, or whether it would be better as a technocratic system of planning in this country with chapters on its evolution, what is meant by planning, lessons from previous reviews of the system, and a description of how it is actually supposed to work today. Clear key diagrams explain the relationship of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to the planning system and how it differs from the principles of the 1947 Planning Act. Having established that planning law is one of the most complex sets of Acts and Orders in the whole English legislative system, the review formu-

14

Planning in London

lated nine simple propositions for a new planning system (as summarised on the previous page by Simon Ricketts). These range from planning in the public interest and with a purpose to encouraging creative and visionary planners. It is on these propositions that Nick Raynsford is calling for further comments and responses: this is an interim report and is flagged up primarily as a consultation document.

But the nub of the launch was a last question that concerned what standing the final report will have with government and the powers that be. The TCPA is a small organisation, albeit with considerable influence – and the launch was evidently very well received at the House of Lords.

However, there is a body of opinion that questions whether planning should be democratic at all,

Andrew Rogers is a planningh consultant and chairs the ACA Planning Action Group

or whether it would be better as a technocratic system, and also those who feel that the system is already too centralised so that they are simply dealing with ‘planning by surrender’.

All these issues, along with the many problems identified by the review, await further analysis and the final report will have to be somewhat a judgment of Solomon. n

OPINION: HOUSING AS AN INVESTMENT | JAY DAS

“…for too long, we haven’t 1 built enough homes” Is planning for housing still a good investment choice asks Jay Das

The government has recognised and confirmed that not enough houses are built in England and Wales. The challenge of building more homes to address identified need appears insurmountable.

At each election it is clear that the government needs to address the housing crisis with continued increase in house prices resulting in ever increasing age of first time buyers and social concerns created by increasing numbers of adult children who have to continue to reside with their parents well into their 40s.

This is however a political problem identified since the 1970s when house building was at its highest levels and some 50 per cent of the new homes being built were constructed by local authorities and housing associations. Official statistics confirm that during the year 1969/70 at the height of house building some 400,000 new homes were built approximately 50% by the private sector and the other 50% by the public sector.

The contribution of the public sector to new homes being completed reduced significantly in

The next meeting of the London Planning & Development Forum will be on Monday 17th September at 2.30 in the Jevons Room at UCL - 2nd floor of Central House, 14 Upper Woburn Place, WC1H 0NN Please advise the Hon Secretary at robplan@btconnect.com www.planninginlondon.com

the 1980s and by 1982/83 the public-sector contribution had been reduced by some 150,000 homes per year (which more or less accounts for the current shortfall). The private sector contributed some 200,000 homes (which dropped significantly during the 2007 to 2011 financial crisis) but which is again increasing.

The planning system bore the brunt of the "blame” for an ever increasing shortfall in new houses required. Planning authorities came under increasing pressure to determine planning applications within the statutory determination period or face financial penalties. In addition to that the permitted development regime has been greatly extended and relaxed to enable housing development with the most minor of interferences from planning authorities. The consequence of all this has been that significantly more planning permissions have been granted in recent years than at any time since 2006.

The government has therefore cracked one part of the housing problem via the planning regime, to increase the numbers of planning permission for new homes. Changes to legislation and policy is perhaps the easiest change that any government can introduce and there have been significant changes to the planning system since the financial crisis.

Housing developers are now identified as a party to "blame". They have faced significant criticism for land-banking and for maintaining higher costs of new homes. Sir Oliver Letwin appointed by the government to explain the significant gap between housing completions and the amount of land allocated or permissioned in his interim letter in March this year has stated that "the fundamental driver of build out rates once detailed planning permission is granted for large sites appears to be the ‘absorption rate’ – the rate at which newly constructed homes can be sold into (or are believed by the house-builder to be able to be sold successfully into) the local market without materially disturbing the market price."

The shift of the "blame" game to the developer perhaps should not come as a great surprise when many are listed companies and their profits are readily accessible and published by the media. The

Jay Das is a partner with Wedlake Bell

government confirmed that between 2010 and 2015, the biggest five house builders saw their profit before tax rise by 473%.The rate of growth in profit is reported to be 10 times the rate of increase in completions. The obvious culprit insofar as there could be said to be one may simply be the significant drop in house building by local authorities which took place in 1970.It is I think unarguable that the relaxation of the planning system to promote more housing development has contributed to the increase in numbers of planning permission for new homes. The reported profit levels of big housebuilders would suggest that housing remains a lucrative sector despite the ups and downs of the economic cycle.

In the meantime the Raynsford review looking at the state of the planning system would suggest a different approach to that being adopted by the government. The review finds that the pendulum has swung too far in favour of the developer and that the planning system is essentially too relaxed.

Having practised in the housing development sector for a number of years it is clear to me that planning policy is often recycled and that it is not uncommon to find old policies being revived every few decades. The system may become more restrained as is already apparent from the withdrawal of permitted development rights for many office building and complaints about quality and standard of office to resi conversions.

The government has announced a number of infrastructure funds targeted to increase the numbers of homes to be delivered across the country. It cannot however do very much about economic concerns of the impact of Brexit. These concerns would affect all industries and as such house building must remain high on the list of investment choices. n >>> 1

Department for Communities and Local Government, Fixing Our Broken Housing Market, February 2017, Cm 9352.

Issue 106 July-September 2018

15

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

OPINION: DEVELOPMENT SENTIMENT | GAVIN KIERAN

Sentiment improves for the capital’s development sector It’s a start, but not quite enough says Gavin Kieran

The industry is still sceptical that central and local Government is doing enough to enable development, although the results of our Spring London Development Barometer show a very slight improvement in their outlook from six months ago. That was in Autumn, when 86% of respondents said they could do more.

That figure’s now dropped to 82%. Whilst that is of course in an improvement, it still shows how much more must be done.

The Government has been busy since Autumn, that much is clear. The Budget announcement accounted for Crossrail 2, infrastructure and the newly rebranded Homes England. They also published proposed amendments to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) for consultation, published the National Infrastructure and Construction Pipeline, announced plans to fund a series of garden cities, and launched bidding for funds to improve local road networks to name a few.

The Mayor has been active too. The draft London Plan has been issued alongside new affordable housing guidance. We’ve also seen the launch of the small builders programme on Transport for London sites, the formation of partnerships and further land acquisitions to help unlock development capacities.

Both Government and City Hall have been engaging in a range of initiatives that look set to offer varying degrees of impact at this moment in time. Take the Autumn Budget’s proposals for Crossrail 2; 80% of our respondents believe it will have a positive impact on London. More wide ranging strategies and policy reviews take a while to settle in, so we will need to be patient before drawing conclusions.

Both the draft NPPF and draft London Plan aim to facilitate delivery, particularly of housing. Despite this, the number one priority for the industry to enable development is still improving town planning policy. It’s also been cited as the top priority by a larger margin, with 61% ranking it in the top two priorities compared to 47% six months ago. The new measures taken by government and Mayor are yet to assuage industry concerns.

It’s tricky to say with confidence exactly why that is. It could be because the proposed amend-

www.planninginlondon.com

ments to national and local planning policies are either not enough, or unpersuasive. For one, the London Plan and Planning Review are yet to be finalised. It takes time to produce any actionable guidance, and longer still for tangible results. Some might argue that there is too much ‘tinkering’ going on, rather than a more comprehensive overhaul of the system to promote development activity. For now, perhaps the most demonstrable change to Mayoral Planning Policy is the Mayor’s approach to affordable housing and viability testing.

Another possible contributing factor could simply be because the town planning process is, for better or worse, very much a political process. The saga of the Haringey Development Vehicle is a reminder of how best intentions could be toppled through due procedure.

However, respondents have taken well to at least some of the initiatives proposed, albeit to a small extent.

It’s telling that the percentage of those ranking funding for local authorities, infrastructure, transport and housing delivery as its second highest priority dropped from 44% to 38%. Whether it’s Crossrail, the garden cities initiative, further infrastructure commitments or support for the GLA’s affordable spending plans, the industry has taken well to the government dipping into its pockets.

But it’s planning that is still the real bugbear. The industry has made it clear it is working within a sub-

Gavin Kieran is director of M3 Consulting

optimal system that needs a rethink. Industry announcements that have taken place since we held our spring survey have re-enforced that reality, namely through former housing minister Nick Raynsford who echoed the industry sentiment in his Raynsford Review, which said the legal framework underpinning the planning system has become “more complex and confused”, with “fragmented legislation shaping different aspects of local and national planning and little coordination between the two”.

Whilst much more needs to be done, it’s a start.

The truth is that central and local governments have been active but it will take time to understand the impact. Our next survey will be able to paint a clearer picture on how the industry has taken to the NPPF and the London Plan as outline proposals will have settled in. n About London Development Barometer The London Development Barometer is an industry wide survey which helps track sentiment within the capital’s development sector.

Issue 106 July-September 2018

17

BRIEFING | PLANNING PERFORMANCE

85% of minor planning applications approved within 8 weeks, the same figure as for the preceding quarter Latest planning performance by English districts and London boroughs: Planning Applications in England: January-March 2018 OVERVIEW Between January and March 2018, district level planning authorities in England: • received 116,700 applications for planning permission, down five per cent for the corresponding quarter of 2017; • granted 87,900 decisions, down two per cent from the same quarter in 2017; this is equivalent to 88 per cent of decisions, up from 87 per cent for the same quarter of 2017; • decided 88 per cent of major applications within 13 weeks or the agreed time, unchanged from a year earlier; • granted 11,900 residential applications, down four per cent on a year earlier: 1,700 for major developments and 10,200 for minors; • granted 2,300 applications for commercial developments, down 11 per cent on a year earlier; • received 8,700 applications for prior approval for permitted development rights, down six per cent from the same quarter of 2017. Of these, 1,300 applications were for changes to residential use, of which 900 were given the go-ahead without having to go through the full planning

process.

In the year ending March 2018, district level planning authorities: • granted 378,600 decisions, down two per cent on the year ending March 2017; • granted 49,100 decisions on residential developments, of which 6,500 were for major developments and 42,700 were for minors, both down by two per cent on the year ending March 2017; • granted 9,900 applications for commercial developments, down 11 per cent on the year ending March 2017.

Planning applications During January to March 2018, authorities undertaking district level planning in England received 116,700 applications for planning permission, down five per cent on the corresponding quarter in 2017. In the year ending March 2018, authorities received 470,100 planning applications, down three per cent on the year ending March 2017 (Live Tables P120/P132/P134 and Table 1).

Planning decisions Authorities reported 100,400 decisions on planning applications in January to March 2018, a decrease of two per cent on the 102,500 decisions in the same quarter of the previous year. In the year ending March 2018, authorities decided 431,500 planning applications, down two per cent on the number in the year ending March 2017 (Live Tables P120/P133/P134 and Table 1).

Applications granted During January to March 2018, authorities granted 87,900 decisions, down two per cent on the same quarter in 2017. Authorities granted 88 per cent of all decisions, up from 87 per cent in the March quarter of 2017 (Live Tables P120/P133).

Overall, 82 per cent of major and minor decisions were granted.

Figure 2 summarises the distribution of the percentage of decisions granted across authorities for major, minor and other developments using box and whisker plots. The ends of the box are the upper and lower quartiles, meaning that 50 per cent of local authorities fall within this range. The whiskers are the two lines above and below the box that extend to the highest and lowest observations (the range). Figure 2 shows that the variation in percentage of decisions granted this quarter is widest between authorities for major developments (33 to 100 per cent), followed by minor developments (39 to 100 per cent) and other developments (50 to 100 per cent) (Live Tables P120/P131).

Over the 12 months to March 2018, 378,600 decisions were granted, down two per cent on the figure for the year to March 2017 (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

18

Planning in London

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

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 January to March 2018, 88 per cent of major applications were decided within 13 weeks or within the agreed time, unchanged from the same quarter a year earlier.

• In January to March 2018, 85 per cent of minor applications and 90 per cent of other applications were decided within eight weeks or the agreed time, both unchanged from a year earlier.

Figure 3 summarises the distribution of the per-

Planning decisions by development type, speed of decision and local planning authority: January-March 2018. Table 131 can be found with all tables and figures here: https://goo.gl/hWHSSe Source: CLG/ONS centage of decisions made in time across authorities for major, minor and other developments using box and whisker plots. The ends of the box are the upper and lower quartiles, meaning that 50 per cent of local authorities fall within this range. The whiskers are the two lines above and below the box that extend to the highest and lowest observations (the range). Figure 3 shows that the variation in percentage of decisions made in time this quarter is widest between authorities for major developments (22 to 100 per cent), followed by minor developments (35 to 100 per cent) and other developments (58 to 100 per cent) (Live Tables P120, P123 and P131).

Use of performance agreements Because the most consistent reporting of the use of performance agreements3 is for major applica- >>> tions, Figure 4 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 definitional changes, there has been a marked increase in the use of agreements since early 2013, although the increases have slowed down in recent quarters. In reality, this 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 63 per cent during January to March 2018 (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 latest4 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 particular, Live Table P151a gives detailed figures for the time taken for major decisions to be made over the eight most recent quarters and Live Table P153 presents data for the time taken by district level local planning authorities for decisions on ‘non-major developments’ (previously ‘minor and other developments’, and defined as minor developments, changes of use and householder developments) to be made over the eight >>>

www.planninginlondon.com

Issue 106 July-September 2018

19

BRIEFING | PLANNING PERFORMANCE

>>> most recent quarters.

Similarly, Live Table P152a, presents data on the performance of district level local planning authorities against the latest5 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 decisions 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 onappeals. 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 look at the numbers of decisions on planning applications submitted to local planning authorities rather than the number of units included in each application, such as the number of homes in the case of housing developments. The department supplements this information by obtaining statistics on housing permissions from a contractor. The latest figures show that permission for 347,000 homes was given in the rolling year to 31 March 2018,

down two per cent compared to the 354,000 homes granted permission in the rolling year to 31 December 20176 and up 11 per cent compared to the 314,000 homes granted permission in the rolling year to 31 March 2017. On an ongoing basis, figures are revised to ensure that any duplicates are removed, and also to include any projects that local planning authorities may not have processed: they are therefore subject to change. These figures are provided to give contextual information, and have not been designated as National Statistics.

Regarding the figures reported by local planning authorities to the department on PS1/2 returns, in January to March 2018, 16,100 decisions were made on applications for residential7 developments, of which 11,900 (74 per cent) were granted. The total number of residential decisions made decreased by four per cent from the March quarter of 2017, with the number granted also dropping four per cent.

The number of major residential decisions granted decreased by four per cent to 1,700, and the number of minor residential decisions granted also decreased by four per cent to 10,200 (Live Tables P120A, P123 and P135). In the year ending March 2018, authorities granted 6,500 major and 42,700 minor residential applications, both down by two per cent on the year ending March 2017 (Live Tables P120A and P136).

Commercial 8 decisions In January to March 2018, 2,500 decisions were made on applications for commercial developments, of which 2,300 (91 per cent) were granted.

The total number of commercial decisions made decreased by 11 per cent on the same quarter of 2017. In the year ending March 2018, 9,900 applications for commercial developments were grant-

ed, down 11 per cent on the year ending March 2017 (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, albeit with some decreases recently. In 2017/18, numbers of major developments were at about 57 per cent of the pre-recession peak, with the numbers of minor commercial decisions being at about 40 per cent (Live Tables P120A and P120B, Figure 6).

Trends in the percentage of residential and commercial decisions granted The percentages of major and minor residential decisions granted increased between 2008/09 (from about 65 per cent for each type) and 2010/11 (to about 80 per cent for majors and about 75 per cent for minors), and have stabilised since then. The percentages of major and minor commercial decisions granted have been increasing steadily, from 88 and 86 per cent respectively in 2008/09, to 94 and 91 per cent respectively in 2017/18 (Live Tables P120A and P120B, Figure 7).

Householder developments Householder developments are those developments to a house which require planning permission such as extensions, loft conversions and conservatories (more details are in the Definitions section). The number of decisions on householder developments was 50,500 in the quarter ending March 2018, accounting for 50 per cent of all decisions, up from the 50,300 decisions in the quarter ending March 2017. Authorities granted 91 per cent of these applications and decided 92 per cent within eight weeks or the agreed time (Live Table P123).

Permitted development rights Planning permission for some types of development has been granted nationally through legislation, and the resulting rights are known as ‘permitted development rights’. In some cases, if the legislation is complied with, developments can go ahead without the requirement to notify the local planning authority and hence no way of capturing data exists.

In other cases, the legislation requires an application to the local planning authority to determine whether prior approval is required (more details

20

Planning in London

are in the Definitions section).

The results for the latest quarter for which they have been collected (January to March 2018) are included in Live Tables PDR1 (local authority level figures) and PDR2 (England totals). Of the 8,700 applications reported in the January to March quarter of 2018, prior approval was not required for 4,700, and permission was granted for 2,100 and refused for 1,900. This resulted in an overall acceptance rate 10 of 79 per cent.

Larger householder extensions accounted for 70 per cent of applications (6,000), with six per cent relating to office to residential changes and six per cent to agricultural to residential changes.

‘All other’ permitted development rights, accounted for 15 per cent of applications up from 14 per cent a year earlier.

Taking i) granted applications and ii) those for which prior approval was not required together, 6,800 applications were approved without having to go through the full planning process, down eight per cent from a year earlier.

Within an overall decrease of six per cent in the reported total number of PDR applications between January to March 2017 and January to March 2018: • larger householder extensions decreased by seven per cent; • office to residential changes decreased by 16 per cent; • agricultural to residential changes decreased by 14 per cent; and • ‘all other’ permitted development rights increased by five per cent.

Figures for the total number of permitted development right applications made for changes to residential for quarters from January to March 2017 onwards are given in Live Table PDR1, which show that a total of 1,300 applications for changes to residential use were reported in January to March 2018, of which 900 (70 per cent) were given the go-ahead without having to go through the full planning process.

The overall acceptance rate for the sixteen quarters between the collection of detailed data started in April 2014 and the end of March 2018 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, and has broadly stabilised since then (Live Table PDR2).

Overall during the sixteen quarters ending March 2018, district planning authorities reported 158,400 applications for prior approvals for permitted developments. For 89,700 (57 per cent) of them prior approval was not required, 38,600 (24 per cent) were granted and 30,000 (19 per cent) were refused (Figure 8). n

www.planninginlondon.com

Issue 106 July-September 2018

21

NEIL PARKYN

What’s the use(s)?

Old is the New New, says Neil Parkyn starts……

A true urban drama. You are charged with ‘selling’ a residential project to London Docklands – resi above a ground floor to be filled with something – retail by chance, artists’ workplaces, housing association one-stop shops etc etc but soon you run out of credible uses. There simply isn’t enough ‘stuff’ to fill out a convincing ground floor.

It’s a challenging assignment for any RICS guy or girl.

If you look in the right pile you can hopefully unearth your own dogeared copy of Jane Jacobs’ masterwork, ‘The Death and Life of the Great American Cities’. It remains an evergreen serenade to the City, notably for her plea for diversity at street level. It celebrates – amongst many other qualities - the principle and practice of Mixed Use, that happy mélange of functions with front doors on the street, be they secondhand vinyl record shops, pet grooming parlours or ethnic eateries. Few would dispute that this makes for a lively urban scene, even if it can sometimes resemble a sound stage from ‘West Side Story’.

It’s a cry against monoculture – the creation of single-use complexes which give nothing back, for all their architectural eminence . Here we

might set the otherwise successful London Barbican , admittedly enhanced by cultural elements, yet bereft of shopping, unless you count the shops of Golden Lane. Quite a walk, then, to buy your copy of the Radio Times or a bag of sweets. One could compare this with the Coin Street development, with The Cut not so far away and plenty of retail buzz nearby.

Old is the New New One solution often rolled out is the ‘repurposing’ (an uggh ! word) of offices or industrial premises in fringe but now achingly fashionable areas ringing the central core. A simple recipe. Take a typical ‘60°s office block, retain the concrete frame and infill with instant resi. What’s NOT to like? Only this: it’s rather tricksy to provide any decent amenity for each and every flat, apart from the familiar cascade of clip-on balconies; hard to provide much in the way of residents’ parking space on these tight inner city sites; problematic to open up the facades to provide more glazing than the office floors could offer , not at all easy to access and service the building deftly.

Better, one finds, to light upon former industrial premises which can be rebranded as ‘The Old

Neil Parkyn is an architect and planner living in France. He is a former director of transport consultants Colin Buchanan and Partners

Printing Works’, ‘The Old Foundry’, The Old Courthouse’, ‘The Old tax Office’ and so on, as long as it’s an old something. You can always hang onto some silent machinery to grace the lobby. High ceilings, ‘character’ facades and a fascinating back story…. The marketing brochure writes itself. You’ve only to look at The Gasholders at Kings Cross to see how to do it. An exemplary project.

What we are seeking is the effortless inclusion of those bijou uses such as the proverbial convenience store, sandwich bar, dry cleaners and so on, composed with such obvious rightness as the cut-off corners and half levels of the superblocks of Cerdà’s Barcelona.

Why not drop in for a quick tapas when searching for shoelaces or a sink plunger ? It’s an attractive prototype based on practical use, much more convincing than the ‘shopping street’ halfway up one of Le Corbusier’s housing unités, whatever their merits as sculpture.

Retail apart, one can bemoan the impoverishment of our housing projects in the absence of freestanding public buildings such as Tecton/Lubetkin’s Finsbury Health Centre (1938),when they shone out as beacons of a caring community, distinguished works of architecture in their own right. Today such social uses tend to be all too readily compressed into the ground floor of a housing block as impromptu ‘filler’, while they just need air to breath and individual expression.

A trio of templates It might help the prospective mixed-user to recall three sterling models of best practice. Certainly there are others, but these three are easily visited with your One-Day Travelcard or trusty Oyster.

22

Planning in London

LETTERS

Victorian/Edwardian Hugh Street This model is to be found everywhere in our inner suburbs, simply miles of it ; with bike repair shops hugger mugger with Colombian eateries and ironmongers.

Simply flats over mixed retail, sometimes with a continuous roof/terrace if the flats are set back. A robust and reliable model ensuring an animated street frontage. Pictured in Highbury, BELOW The Sicilian Arcade, Holborn Pictured LEFT, this is a real cracker, with an elegant sopping/restaurant arcade shortcutting an urban corner, purpose designed as part of a mansion

LEFT: vertical mix, tried and tested: Highbury

only one could solve the dilemma of the stepped section – how to fill the backside, apart from the Brunswick’s epic colonnade.

But why stop there ? If ever you find yourself in Manhattan, it’s well worth a morning at the Rockefeller Center, a 19 building complex that’s a model for any aspiring urbnanist. Mixed Use – you’ve got it ! Offices, shops, cafés, public gardens, even a seasonal ice rink, unified by an architecture which works so successfully within its chosen design code. Catch it on a pre-Christmas evening and you have a genuine (mixed use) Winter Wonderland. n

block development. It offers richly modelled shopfronts and assured taste while being well used as a pedestrian route. When visiting, treat yourself to an escalope valdostana and a large glass of Montipulciano before or after your site visit, admiring the Arcade in action from your table. Or seek out the shopping arcade leading off the southern end of Belgrave Square.

The Brunswick Centre, Bloomsbury Finally, after a long and painful gestation, Patrick Hodgkinson’s masterpeice has come into its owna textbook stepped section design with a central ‘valley’ of shopping and eateries framed by rising terrace of flats featuring generous private sundecks. Even a Waitrose. It’ all very animated and a valuable role model for other urban superblocks, if

www.planninginlondon.com

Issue 106 July-September 2018

23

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

LETTERS

From: Andrew Catto

Parker Morris Dear Editor I just dug out Parker Morris, and came across this (from 1961): “162. After inspecting so many developments in all parts of the country, we feel bound to record our concern that there should be such a vast gap between the best housing schemes in the country and many of the others. Control of development by town planning cannot by itself produce good layout and appearance – the onus to achieve this lies with the developer himself, whether he is a private individual or a local authority. It cannot be achieved without using qualified professional people, architects and landscape architects, to design not only the individual house and house group but, every bit as important, the layout as a whole and the landscaping” – Published by the ‘Ministry of Housing and Local Government’.

If that idea can be revived, why not the clear requirement above for design by architects because the planners are not qualified or able?

n From: Michael Bach, London Forum of Amenity and Civic Societies

Tall buildings may not meet London's needs By any planning policy metrics, tall residential buildings perform very badly. Some suggest that they have "a role to play" in housing delivery, but where is the evidence that they help to create the kind of city that Londoners want, let alone the housing they need?

New London Architecture and GL Hearn’s annual survey of tall buildings (Planning, 1 June, p28) is little more than a "crane index" – a crude indicator of economic activity. It is not an indicator of housing delivery, let alone of tall buildings’ contribution to meeting the need for affordable homes.

There is a high opportunity cost of pursuing this

24

Planning in London

route to housing delivery. In London, using sites for this type of housing is a waste. They could have produced more housing, and homes Londoners could afford. Instead of the tall buildings, we could have had higher-density, medium-rise developments with a large proportion of affordable housing.

NLA/GL Hearn estimate that there could be 106,000 units in the tall buildings "pipeline" but have no evidence of the contribution they make to meeting London’s housing needs. Future surveys will need to provide a critical assessment of what tall buildings contribute.

The mayor has no such excuse. Every 20-storey building notified to him is in the London Development Database. A key test is not only how much affordable housing was included in the consents, but what has actually materialised. Tall buildings in the pipeline usually represent missed opportunities for affordable housing.

Before insisting that tall buildings have a role to play in delivering London’s housing, let’s see what role they have played to date. Would any of the 510 tall buildings in the pipeline meet the mayor’s 35 per cent affordable housing benchmark?

It is time for the mayor to take a more critical look at the evidence of what tall buildings have contributed and will contribute to delivering homes for Londoners and supporting the types of communities that the new London Plan proposes.

n From: Stephen Heath To: Neil Parkyn with copy to The Editor

Gritty anecdotal evidence from the real world.

Cher Monsieur le Parc Thank you indeed for your moving piece on 'Transports of Delight' (PiL 105) which, despite being deleted from PiL Editor's circulation list, I had seen and will certainly comment on in readiness for the next feature-packed edition. (which includes this strange letter - Ed.)

The editorial staff of that esteemed journal clearly need be made aware of the author's stark omission of any references to London going through some awkward trip-generating manoeuvres with Sadiq's vanity project on Rue Oxford and Camden's cumbersome old war horse, the West End Projet plodding along around the corner on Boulevard Cour de Tottenham to try and catch next year's Betty Line tube.

Not a chance - the latter has now been 13 years in the making and a large funding gap in Camden's officer pension plan relies on being filled by it dragging on for a few more decades. Rumour has it that CdeT will be admirably free of both buses, shops and people by the time it opens and will immediately need to be replanned to accommodate all the rough sleepers, autonomous Uber drone taxis, regulation-free, sustainable stagecoaches (aka rickshaws) and defunct Routemaster Nouveau that by then will have clogged its vital arteries.

Which neatly brings me on to your next whinge from the Midi Front on 'Useless Uses' that again needs to be brought back to earth with some gritty anecdotal evidence from the real world.

La beauté est dans la rue!

Vive la France!

Etienne, Lecteur de Preuve Supplément de Culture Populaire de Brexitania Bloomsbury Bungle

CLIPBOARD

Dolphin Square to add 150 flats No city in the world has equalled London’s good fortune in being uplifted by exceptional and distinctive residential development. Paris and Amsterdam might measure up if their older residences alone were the determinant. But then in the 20th century, London incontrovertibly became leader, flourishing three superlative modern developments. And all in Pimlico, for heaven’s sake.

They were Dolphin Square (1935-37) by Gordon Jeeves for the private developers Costains; Churchill Gardens (1947-62) by competition- winning architects Powell and Moya for the City of Westminster; and Lillington Gardens (1961-72) by another competition-winning team, Darbourne and Darke, again for the City of Westminster. The Big Three, we should think, to which the earlier Peabody Estates could be added for a scattered but estimable Fourth.

If Dolphin Square for us may have sunk more into the stylistic and perceptual familiar than the others, Google shows its grandeur. It was built with 1,236 residential units, and when new was called the largest self-contained block of flats in Europe. Its estimable and resourceful architect Gordon Jeeves provided mechanical ventilation for the bathrooms, consolidated rubbish stores, an on- site restaurant and swimming pool, and heating that was once piped in under the river from Battersea Power Station.

Hundreds of MPs have lived at Dolphin Square, many famous people, and in legend, it provided discreet comfort for kept women. The City of Westminster bought it all in the mid1960s, then raised £200 million by selling it again in 2006.

Dolphin Square's present owners have been testing opinions about possible changes, causing anxiety and concern for long-time residents. They have now applied (see 18/01099/FULL) to demolish the somewhat lower north side of the vast quadrangle—currently used for short-term

www.planninginlondon.com

lets and a hotel—and to replace it with one of equal height to the others. All other existing buildings would remain, with one storey added, and one of the car parks would be converted to provide space for about 20 mews-type houses.

The additional storeys and houses would provide about 150 additional homes.

The owners also want to rebuild the swimming pool and restaurant underground, which is where the Westminster Society has drawn the line. We haven't objected to the major refurbishment and the additions, but we believe that the swimming pool, restaurant and gardens are strong elements of the original design that should be protected and retained.

– Westminster Society Newsletter June 2018

Appeals fall off the shelf This magazine has long argued that the appeal

system represents the bookends which hold up the planning and development management system.

Books are hitting the floor at the moment with the Inspectorate admitting to extensive delays in registering new appeals. And this at a time when ministers have been raising their rhetoric against councils they see is failing in their duty to plan for homes and process applications diligently.

Planning lawyer Simon Ricketts is not alone in seeing a degree of hypocrisy here. "The government is in no position to criticise local authorities.

If local authorities were able to sit on applications for two or three months before validating them, then there would be absolute uproar, he says.

"The government would not sit back and allow that to happen – but that's exactly what's happening with appeals."

– Planning >>>

Issue 106 July-September 2018

27

CLIPBOARD

>>> London

leavers reach new high

In the year to June 2017, net outward migration from London reached 106,607 people – more than 14 per cent higher than in 2016 and 55 per cent higher than five years earlier. To put this into context, London’s population currently stands at 8.8 million, up from 8.1 million in 2011.

The most popular destination for leavers last year was Scotland, though there is no local authority breakdown. For those moving within England, Birmingham was the most popular destination, followed by Brighton and Hove, Thurrock and Bristol.

Londoners in their 30s formed the largest cohort leaving the capital (see chart), with the most popular destinations concentrated around the capital’s commuter belt with places like Elmbridge, Dartford, Reigate and Slough in the top ten. “Housing affordability is likely to have helped sway the decision of some to leave London,” said Tom Bill, head of London residential research at Knight Frank. “While this highlights a potential longer-term risk for the capital’s economy, for others, exceptional house price growth in London in recent years will have enabled them to make the move.”

The only age group that had a positive net migration figure in the capital, according to the statistics which date back to 2011, is those in their twenties. This is likely to reflect the large number of graduates moving to London. In total, just over 336,000 people left London for elsewhere in the

UK in the year to June 2017, up by 15 per cent on the previous year.

Oliver Knight, an associate in Knight Frank’s residential research team, said: “As well as a desire to ‘trade up the housing ladder’ in search of more space, increased employment opportunities outside London mean people are becoming more confident to make the move from the capital. Planned improvements to transport infrastructure, including the full opening on the Elizabeth Line next year and HS2 in 2026 will extend the scale of the commuter zone further, potentially supporting this trend.” – http://www.knightfrank.co.uk/blog

Another ‘Cheesegrater’ The City of London has resolved to grant planning permission to SOM’s 56-storey 100 Leadenhall.

The office tower is being developed by HongKong based developer Lai Sun Development Company and will reach a height of 263.4m to become the third-highest structure in the Square Mile’s construction pipeline at 41m shorter than Eric Parry’s proposed 1 Undershaft and 31m shorter than PLP’s 22 Bishopsgate which under construction.

The building will provide over 102,000sq m of office accommodation, as well as basement showers, cycle parking, ground-floor retail space, two podium terraces and a public viewing gallery on the top two floors. An estimated 6,300 workers will work in the building.

The building is part of the City’s so-called eastern cluster which includes KPF’s Scalpel building at 52 Lime Street which is being built by Skanska.

– LEFT: Image by architects Skidmore, Owings & Merrill

28

Planning in London

The next meeting of the London Planning & Development Forum will be on Monday 17th September at 2.30 in the Jevons Room at UCL - 2nd floor of Central House, 14 Upper Woburn Place, WC1H 0NN To attend please advise the Hon Secretary at robplan@btconnect.com

REGI ww

ST

w.l ER TO on do A T T E nb uildND FO exp R F o.c R E E om

23 - 24 OCTOBER IN PARTNERSHIP WITH OLYMPIA LONDON

8

LEARN. NETWORK. WIN BUSINESS.

ATTEND THE LEADING

construction & design show for London EVENT FEATURES

300+ EXHIBITORS | 200+ INDUSTRY SPEAKERS | 220+ CPD SESSIONS 9 DEDICATED ZONES

London Design ZONE

BIM & DIGITAL construction

PLANT & MACHINERY

SUSTAINABILITY ZONE Product Innovation

BUILDINGS

ZONE

ZONE

Interior & fit-out

fire safety ZONE

INTERESTED IN EXHIBITING? GET IN TOUCH WITH THE TEAM:

enquiries@londonbuildexpo.com | 0203 058 2350 | www.londonbuildexpo.com

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

¡ PILLO!

River of light The Illuminated River project will be the longest public art commission in the world at 2.5 miles in length – along 4.5 nautical miles. Whilst each bridge will be lit differently, the artwork is designed to unify the 15 bridges and will subtly change, unfolding through light and colour.

Thomson Ecology has been working with architects Lifschutz Davidson Sandilands and

have advised been identifying potential impacts to both aquatic life and ecology around the river itself. They have also undertaken ecological surveys to determine baseline populations of bats and breeding birds.

This will be a permanent, free art installation, to be enjoyed by Londoners, commuters and visitors, and will be associated with 15 bridges from Albert Bridge in Chelsea to Tower Bridge.

First winner of Grenfell memorial fund named

Drawing by Giulia Pannochia

www.planninginlondon.com

A scholarship set up in honour of two young Italian architects who died in the Grenfell Tower fire has named Giulia Pannochia as its first winner.

The graduate of Università Iuav di Venezia (IUAV), the same university where Gloria Trevisan and Marco Gottardi studied, will come to London in September for the three-month scholarship.

The annual Gloria e Marco (GeM) Award was set up by Peregrine Bryant – the conservation architect who employed Trevisan for a few days before her death – in association with the Society for Protection of Ancient Buildings, IUAV, and the couple’s families.

Pannochia, 25, who was chosen from a shortlist of seven graduates from IUAV in a two-stage process, said the award was a great opportunity to

‘broaden her horizons’.

She added: ‘I hope to have the opportunity for the first time to gain hands-on practical experience of repair methods of old buildings and to learn more about British architecture with its eclectic combination of styles.’

The graduate will spend her time at a number of heritage organisations and practices, including Bryant’s own practice, and will keep a diary of her experiences.

Bryant said all of the applicants were of a ‘high standard’ but Pannochia stood out with the quality of her computer graphic images and the ‘independence of spirit’ she showed in her decision to explore the old Marconi building for her thesis rather than a project suggested by tutors.

Bryant said the families of Gloria Trevisan and Marco Gottardi ‘wholeheartedly support’ the project and had attended the announcement of the winner in Italy. ’Nothing can replace the loss they have had but I think and hope they see it [the award] as something positive that will maintain the memories of their lives and talents,’ he added.

Sitting comfortably A series of ten one-off new public benches across the City of London will show off London’s design talent – five in Cheapside and five in the Eastern Cluster.

They are the outcome of a competition by the London Festival of Architecture and the City Corporation. The claim is that “they will help the City to remain an exceptional place to live, work and visit”. n

Issue 106 July-September 2018

31

BRIEFING | LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM

Planning for small sites, the impact of Crossrail & of the draft NPPF Minutes of the London Planning and Development Forum at London Councils on Monday 4th June 2018. Full minute by Andy Rogers and Drummond Robson at planninginlondon.com > LP&DF

Meeting at London Councils on Monday 4th June 2018 Our host: Serena Perry Brian Waters (Chairman) Andrew Rogers (Acting secretary) Michael Bach Adrian Cole Michael Coupe Peter Eversden Jessica Ferm Ron Heath Judith Ryser Riette Oosterhuizen Tim Wacher Apologies: Drummond Robson, Tom Ball, Yasminah Beebeejaun, Duncan Bowie, David Bradley, Michael Edwards Nicky Gavron, Brian Whiteley

32

Planning in London

Discussion Topics: 1 Densification of the suburbs and infrastructure In the absence of any GLA representatives RO introduced this very topical item by noting that there was a new emphasis on housing provision on small sites in both the new London Plan and the draft revised NPPF. She tabled extract copies from both documents and suggested two immediate problems: paragraph 122.d) of the NPPF proposes the desirability of “maintaining an area’s prevailing character (including residential gardens)” - HTA had recently had a refusal based on the fact that the open space provided was not in the form of traditional font and rear gardens; and the new London Plan’s policy H2 Small Sites requires an increased rate of hous- ing delivery from small housing sites although it is currently much more difficult to get planning approval for such infill schemes - even in HTA’s experience sometimes more difficult than for tower block proposals.

RO felt that land identification and supply

agents were key to housing provision on small sites. Also the numbers of new dwellings in tall buildings was unclear (100,000 up to 2030?) - the NLA should include the type of accommodation in their tall buildings survey. There must be a more proactive role for LPAs to properly identify small (particularly windfall) sites: at present the brownfield sites register is simply a ‘tick-box’ exercise based on existing SHLAA documents.

RO then presented a short series of illustrations showing that intensification is already happening despite wide variations in the way existing character was interpreted from borough to borough and the reluctance of some LPAs to approve such schemes. A wide-ranging discussion followed.

BW said he shared the scepticism of how small sites were identified, currently as half/quarter of a hectare and less than 25 units. There should surely be a definition for very small sites - one or two units - and for the provision of new units (or increased accommodation) by building upwards.

He gave the example of the Ham & Petersham Neighbourhood Plan that through local consulta- >>>

tions had identified numerous very small infill housing sites, none of which appeared on the borough’s brownfield sites register.

RO suggested that planning policy teams are not lined up with their development control colleagues, mostly due to a lack of local authority resources. BW added that a further danger is that Planning in Principle procedures do not include design criteria, although RO noted that the final details of how technical submissions following outline PiP approval will be handled are not yet at all clear. MB suggested that small sites and PiP raise new potential problems, similar to current basement issues.

PE pointed out that the new London Plan and NPPF require a lot of work for LPAs - site identifica- tion, character assessments, design codes, etc, but without additional resources being provided.

He noted that LPAs will have to plan carefully for what they want or the market and permitted develop- ment will decide what is built - particularly in terms of housing types that are needed instead of swathes of large ‘unaffordable’ executive houses.

BW added that LPAs don’t deliver houses and the realism of housing supply is difficult, especially with regard to large sites. The emerging small sites emphasis has an air of desperation and the problems of infrastructure (not just transport but also pedestrian routes, community services, etc) have not been properly defined or considered. B Whiteley adds that we do not want to repeat the Docklands / Tower Hamlets experience of accelerating residential provision only to find water supply,sewagedisposal,electricityand gasprovision, etc cannot keep up in parallel.

RO reiterated that the huge potential of intensification could be very exciting as evidenced by reference to foreign housing schemes, back-toback designs, etc. PE pointed out that infrastructure and servicing problems were not restricted to town centre or suburban sites because the 800metre range from a station includes 800 metres beyond the edge of existing developments.

AC added that PTAL scores are not always the best measure of appropriate new housing as often thought - design and the provision of support services are also key.

MB noted that it is always better to plug into existing services if possible rather than having to provide new ones and PE said that this can be problem if developing out-of-town sites (redundant B&Qs, etc) for housing because they are usually designed for private car access. B Whiteley wants to know how already overloaded existing bus, train and Tube links into central London will cope with accelerated suburban residential development: and how to counterbalance the provision of work opportunities in central London with more

www.planninginlondon.com

dispersed employment across London if are to be able to exploit small sites and promote denser res-

idential development.

BW pointed out that car-sharing and similar >>>

Issue 106 July-September 2018

33

BRIEFING | LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM

>>> initiatives could become more important in the future - the character of residential areas will change so that it’s difficult to understand why there is always emphasis on retaining the existing character. RO added that we should think about how streets will function in the future when changes such as communal recycling/refuse and car clubs using driverless vehicles are considered.

Front and back gardens may well be less important than other private/accessible open spaces.

MC noted that opportunities need to be identified along with existing character and quality: borough-wide character assessments generally don’t exist as yet. BW added that even when they do, if they are more than five years old they will be considered out of date. He noted that high densities are already achievable and indeed are often part of the character, as in the Hampstead Garden Suburb.

2 The impact of Crossrail AC presented a series of diagrams and maps relating to Crossrail developments, based on the premise that London will continue to grow, with an emphasis on clustering and agglomeration.

New housing developments need to be in line with emerging new infrastructure.

AC said that expansion of housing at/near Crossrail stations was not always a transport problem but usually a utilities difficulty. PE asked what had happened to the ‘declarations of deficiency’ (eg water provision in north-east London). And B Whiteley wants to know whether there are lessons to be had from the development of sites along the Elizabeth Line (Crossrail 1) for Crossrail 2: how does the planning system make developments happen which provide a wide range of community needs alongside commercial and residential development, in the face of increased land values – and therefore development costs - along the proposed Crossrail 2 route?

TW noted that patterns of employment and public transport are changing, with reverse-flow commuting on the increase. BW added that large numbers of VAT-registered businesses are now located in private houses. PE said that parking in the workplace is a key consideration and Crossrail developments will unlock ever more housing sites.

TW suggested that Transport Infrastructure Funding (related to future business rates income) works well at Battersea, although PE pointed out that as a result the permitted towers are half as high again as is allowed for in the local policies.

AC conceded that there are challenges and some unforeseen consequences caused by Crossrail developments, such as pressure on lowquality Green Belt land in Chessington and the potential reconstruction of town centres like Wimbledon. BW suggested that in fact future long- term trends are for a reduction in growth in

34

Planning in London

"#$%&'()%(*+,)%-./01)2 • 345%5),$6%7+,8/'+9$%:.+&)'% • ";;.+0<%=>?%+@%1#A./(8/%$,/%)+%1#A./(8/% 1#%+#/%;/.8+#%'+,8/'+9$8

• ";;.+0<%=>?%+@%1#A./(8/%$,/%)+%#/)% B1:.()1+#

• C+#$+#%/@@/A) • D,.)'/.%1#A./(8/%1#%E+*8%:.(F1)()1#:%)+%)'/% A/#)./ • G/$,A/$%9/F/98%+@%;/+;9/%B+F1#:%+,)%&'/#% )'/6%./)1./

• H+./%9+#:/.I$18)(#A/%A+BB,)1#: • 5)199%*1::/8)%/A+#+B1A%A/#)./%1#%J,.+;/

G(19%(#$%P/F/9+;B/#)%1#%C+#$+#

central London, which AC agreed was likely due to the reorganisation of working practices.

PE was concerned about the imbalance of hous- ing for key workers, which AC suggested would inevitably mean more development beyond the M25. BW said that there is always a trade-off between the costs of (a) travel and (b) a mortgage, meaning that the population of London will gradu-

K%L,#/%MN=O ! ?

ally reduce. He added that the main problem is that the land market is broken, rather than difficulties with the planning system or housing developers. AC noted that LPAs can and should take a longer view, but BW doubted that they will - reference current emphasis on private rental sector and new systems of housing investment - as well as recent trends for local authorities to provide hous-

ing. House-owning remains a political issue.

TW and JR queried how increased land values with planning permission are captured. AC said there are widely varying mechanisms which are complex (and not encouraged by the Treasury). PE said that one problem was the requirement for public land to achieve best value, but BW suggested this has now been softened to allow best consideration, not necessarily dependent on financial return.

PE noted that this has not produced significant output yet - one major problem being the Right to Buy that works against local authority housing provision. BW noted that according to a recent NPF report many local authorities are now building social housing. TW proposed that the government should make clear that release of public land can be done without achieving maximum monetary value.

Some discussion took place regarding the ultimate destination of Crossrail 2 (ie why is it not being taken to Stansted?) but this was inconclusive.

Finally AC and BW agreed that the problem of housing with regard to Crossrail developments is how to deal with the spatial planning of London now that spatial planning is back on the agenda.

3 Implications of the draft revised NPPF for London This topic was comprehensively covered by the London Forum’s response to the government consultation. PE and MB were both concerned that the revised draft does not properly recognise London and its problems, so is effectively irrele- vant to it.

BW suggested that the NPPF should relate to England excluding London. MB agreed that the NPPF is not needed for London policies because we have the London Plan - which in many respects contradicts the NPPF (for example with regard to parking standards). He added that the spatial planning of London and how to do it is key to planning policy.

Brian Whitely wants to know if it’s really possible for LPAs to leave the micro-level planning of their areas to neighbourhood plan groups – given the problems of forming and keeping Forums in place, potential conflicts between different residential groups and between commercial and residential interests in an area – e.g. the problems the Bankside area had in pulling the two sides together. And how representative individual Forums are of their areas - unlike LPA Councillors their members do not have to stand for election or be democrati- cally accountable.

JF suggested that pictures are needed but the existing words don’t even paint any pictures. JE added that housing delivery and its associated problems are often distorted by point-scoring and

www.planninginlondon.com

"##$%&'()*)+,-$#-.$/0)123

● A1&)B'+$%-%6#*6B+0-B$?()16&B$0+-$#-*)=)12CB$??/+)12-)1D$/+E-F'0+-F12*'1&

● G'06&-$1-@'1&-;62)0+%,-E$/06>%)B6-&'+'-'1&-'=6%'26&6>$0)+0 ● H$?()16&-B$0+-#'**00)21)#)B'1+*,-)1->$BI6+0J • KFCDF-@$1&$1 • .6'+E%$L • M8-+$-N8-?)1/+60B$??/+6-#%$?@$1&$1-+6%?)1)

● OE6 2'> )0 26++)12 L)&6%

emphasised that local authorities don’t normally deliver housing, they only plan. TW concluded that

,-./012&3-4/

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

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

%&' !"#$%

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

!*(%%&+

the loss of logistical skills in all related disciplines is more still a critical problem. n >>>

Issue 106 July-September 2018

35

BRIEFING | LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM

36

Planning in London

>>>

www.planninginlondon.com

Issue 106 July-September 2018

37

BRIEFING | LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM

>>>

38

Planning in London

www.planninginlondon.com

Issue 106 July-September 2018

39

ANDREW ROGERS

Once more, with meaning When the American lexicographer Webster was discovered by his wife in the arms of their maid, his wife said “I am surprised”. “No, no, my dear” Webster replied. “I am surprised, you are astonished”.

I wrote in my last column that the meaning of words is especially important when dealing with planning matters (as opposed to the importance of the visual when dealing with design or pedantry when dealing with an indiscretion). Here are a few more appeal and court decisions that cast further light on the (sometimes amusing, never straightforward) meanings that the planning system throws up from time to time and the efforts made by some planners to ignore dictionary definitions (and common sense).

Is a go-kart track an amusement?

The answer apparently is, only if it is enclosed by a clear boundary. An East Sussex planning authority had decided that an existing go-kart track did not comply with the definition of an amusement park contained in paragraph B.2 of Part 18 of Schedule

The next meeting of the London Planning & Development Forum will be on Monday 17th September at 2.30 in the Jevons Room at UCL - 2nd floor of Central House, 14 Upper Woburn Place, WC1H 0NN Please advise the Hon Secretary at robplan@btconnect.com

40

Planning in London

2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015, or GPDO, as an enclosed area of open land providing public entertainment. But the appeal inspector determined that a a discontinuous low brick wall and wire fencing not only formed the boundary of the site but also fulfilled the function of ‘a means of enclosure’.

You must lie upon the daisies and discourse in novel phrases of your complicated state of mind, The meaning doesn’t matter if it’s only idle chatter of a transcendental kind.

– W S Gilbert, Patience, 1881

When is a transport route not a highway used by vehicular traffic?

The answer is when it’s a railway track. The generally accepted definition of a highway in planning terms is land over which members of the public have a right to pass and repass. It therefore includes roads, cycle paths and bridleways, but not railway lines. This is useful to know because the GPDO does not allow a fence adjacent to (ie bordering) such a route to be more than a metre high, but would not apply to rail lines.

kiosk into its surroundings. Despite a clear High Court ruling in December 2010 (Infocus Public Networks Ltd v SSCLG as then reported in Martin Goodall’s blog) that the existence of advertising material on a telephone kiosk should not be a material consideration, local authorities continue to issue refusals and the matter has again been referred to the High Court. At the time of writing there is no new ruling: I will return to this in a later column.

When does a planning permission crystallise?

Here the definition of crystallisation (made or becoming definite) depends entirely on the type of permission. It is generally accepted that a full planning approval is safeguarded by making a start on site, which may simply be a nominal commencement. Case law has also established that for permitted development, the right to develop also crystallises on commencement, even when the pd rules are later changed (useful to know when the rules are being changed regularly); while the right to develop is established in cases of prior approval when it is actually granted, or is deemed to be granted in default, regardless of whether any work begins.

When is a phone kiosk an advertisement site?

My dictionary defines a kiosk as “a public telephone box”. These days they are less box and more telephone (ie with open sides) but still have a clear function. To refuse permission, as many local authorities now do, on the grounds that there is too much advertising seems both pedantic and unrealistic - the public benefit of both advertising and a pay phone is surely reasonable. But the Planning Inspectorate is reportedly overwhelmed by appeals against numerous refusals made on the grounds of location and therefore the alleged intrusion of advertising material that is on the

When is a brownfield site no longer brown?

Answer: when it is green. Here we must look at the ‘small print’. The previously developed land definition in the NPPF excludes land “where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape” (the draft revised NPPF omits the additional words “in the process of time” so the blending could effectively be immediate). The site of a historic isolation hospital in the Green Belt near Barnsley, closed in the 1960s, was refused redevelopment permission because the site had been given over to vegetation. And permission was refused for a new home on the site of a house, also in the Green Belt, which had been demolished by government order in 1941 because the site now has the appearance of a field.

When is a caravan truly a caravan?

The answer is when it is capable of being removed.

This means that it could be moved quite easily to somewhere else entirely, not that it could be moved on a track (an appeal in respect of a goat shelter on a bed of sleepers that could be moved from one side of the field to another was unsuccessful), but that it could be lowered onto its wheels, or a trailer, and transported elsewhere, even if this meant the removal of a fence. So the Peckham resident who had a caravan lifted onto the roof of a single-storey extension so that he

had “somewhere to go and relax”, was instructed to take it away and lost his enforcement notice appeal. But a chalet-style caravan in north London that had arrived on a trailer, was not fixed to the ground, had services that were easily uncoupled and was enclosed by a fence that was removable, was allowed even though it was occupied independently.

NPPF, although its paragraph 72 encourages, for specified tenures, housing development “on land which is not already allocated for housing…adjacent to existing settlements”.) Which prompts me to ask

So What constitutes a separate dwelling? (dictionary definition: parted, severed or disconnected accommodation). In planning terms, separation does not always take place with disconnection. In the north London case above, the caravan was occupied by a family member who relied on the main house for laundry and meals, so the use was ancillary to the house. Conversion of a detached garage at a house in Essex to be used as a granny flat was allowed until it was later let to tenants with no family connection; but would have been accepted without formal tenancy agreements, as for a case which retained the conversion as bed and breakfast accommodation that was therefore part of the host property.

And in Kingston-upon-Thames a permission obtained under the GPDO for a new independent outbuilding for the home-owners’ parents but without full bathing and cooking facilities, eventually became a separate dwelling by installing those facilities internally later on (therefore not requiring planning approval) thus allowing a pd change of use.

While a large rear extension in Berkshire that had effectively been de-coupled from the main house leaving an 85cm gap - with its only access through the house - was deemed by an appeal inspector to be an unauthorised extension (GPDO Class A), not an outbuilding (Class E).

When is an isolated home not isolated?

This was the subject of a recent Court of Appeal ruling and related to paragraph 55 of the NPPF, which states that “planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside”. A proposal to alter a pair of barns near Ipswich, including some demolition and partial conversion, had been refused using this paragraph. But a judge has ruled that “isolated” should be given its ordinary meaning of “far away from other places, buildings, or people” rather than simply “remote from services and facilities” as claimed by the local

www.planninginlondon.com

authority. Although the barns were clearly in the countryside, they were surrounded by several other agricultural buildings, so not considered to be isolated. The proposal was allowed.

(Furthermore the judge pointed out that the NPPF only suggests avoidance of isolated homes, not prohibition; and anyway the purpose of the paragraph overall is to encourage the location of housing where it will enhance the vitality of rural communities - and this can often be done by locating homes near to them. I have been unable to find an equivalent to paragraph 55 in the draft revised

When is a barn not a barn that can be converted to a dwelling?

According to a number of recent appeals and court cases, mostly related to the GPDO, probably when it’s no longer capable of being used as a barn (see illustrations).

A. Because it had been mostly destroyed by fire, this barn consisted of a steel frame, nominal roof and concrete pads. There was in effect no building left that could be converted, so an appeal inspector ruled that permitted development rights for conversion to a dwelling were not available.

B. Two separate houses were proposed under Class Q of the General Permitted Development Order, but an appeal inspector found that the building was very dilapidated, with little structural integrity, failed external sheet panelling, a partially collapsed roof and extensive surrounding overgrowth suggesting that it had not been used for some time. Reconstruction would effectively amount to a rebuild, not a conversion.

C. The conversion of a substantial barn in Suffolk included some side and rear extensions that the local authority deemed incompatible with a conversion. But the appeal inspector disagreed, pointing out that the Local Plan only referred to substantial reconstruction of the original building and could not be used to prevent new extensions.

D. The creation of two dwellings from a Gloucestershire barn which had a pitched roof of sheet steel on timber purlins, blockwork walls up to 90cm with timber planking above and a lean-to mono-pitched addition was allowed by an appeal inspector because most of the existing structure was to remain (with new over-cladding) and it was therefore a conversion, not a reconstruction as claimed by the local authority.

And finally, What is agritecture?

The answer is, according to Bouygues Immobilier, its architects and the French National Institute of Agricultural Research, a building (usually a large apartment block) which comprises substantial garden balconies and small trees on every level - also described as “a climatic hero” and an “inhabited tree”. More invented words later… n

Issue 103 October-December 2017

41

HEALTHY NEW COMMUNITIES | MICHAEL CHANG, CHRIS NAYLOR, AMANDA HILL-DIXON AND DELIA BECK

Planning the next generation of healthy new communities Michael Chang, Chris Naylor, Amanda HillDixon and Delia Beck offer lessons for collaborative planning for the next generation of healthy new communities

RIGHT: Michael Chang is Project and Policy Manager at the Town and Country Planning Association; Chris Naylor is a Senior Fellow in Health Policy at The King’s Fund; Amanda Hill-Dixon is Senior Researcher at The Young Foundation; Delia Beck is Project & Relationship Manager at Sport England healthy new communities

42

Planning in London

There is widespread recognition that the places in which we live and work, and the services and facilities we have easy access to, have a major influence over whether or not we live healthy lives – they form part of the ”wider determinants of health”. The University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute suggests population health is generally influenced by the physical environment (10 per cent), access to and quality of healthcare (20 per cent), individual behaviours (30 per cent) and socioeconomic factors such as employment and security (40 per cent).

In London a life expectancy tube map has been produced to show variations from station to station1, for example along the Central Line people living around the station of Bethnal Green would live 8 years less than those living in Holland Park (See Figure 1).

One of the factors is too few of us are taking part in regular physical activity to stay healthy, and inactivity is ultimately responsible for 1 in 6 deaths in the UK2. There is strong evidence that being physically active can help us lead healthier lives, regardless of our age. Regular physical activity can reduce the risk of many chronic conditions, including coronary heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, cancer, obesity, mental health problems and musculoskeletal conditions. London has the highest proportion of adults walking at least once a week (72 per cent) of any region in England, and is the only region where more adults walked for travel (58 per cent) than for leisure (41 per cent) at least once a week.3 We also know there is a need for the provision of and access to high quality health and care infrastructure and services to improve health as boroughs plan for population

change and growth. The Social Infrastructure Supplementary Planning Guidance sets out the role for the planning system in supporting the service reconfiguration, as well as the modernisation of the NHS estate to support the growth agenda.

There is a wide range of physical and mental health challenges the planning system, in collaboration with health professionals, can help tackle. It is of critical importance that our built environments and spaces are designed and planned to encourage behaviours which are conducive to health and wellbeing, through creating and shaping the local environment to help get people live, work and play. It is a complex picture requiring joined up thinking and collaborative action.

Opportunities for the next generation of healthy urban development 2018 presents an exciting opportunity for planning for wellbeing and integrated health and care services as part of new development and regeneration. Two government initiatives, in which many London boroughs are participating, can help illustrate efforts to harness this once in a generation opportunity.

NHS England’s Healthy New Towns NHS England’s Five Year Forward published in 2014 sets out new shared vision for the future of the NHS to close the gaps in health, care, and finances. Testing innovation in a number of ‘healthy new towns’ offers the opportunity to design integrated health and care services, and to develop neighbourhoods that support healthier living and wellbeing. Since March 2016, NHS England has been supporting ten demonstrator sites4 (See Figure 2) to demonstrate what is possible to plan for and create integrated environments and healthcare settings for improving health and wellbeing of communities. In March 2018, four support partners were appointed to create a set of collaborative guidance for bringing forward futue generations of healthy new towns by learning from the lessons of the ten sites. The TCPA has been appointed for the built environment, The King’ Fund on new care models, The Young Foundation on community and PA Consulting on economic analysis.

Sport England’s Active Design Sport England’s strategy, Towards an Active Nation, sets out how sport and physical activity can change lives and create healthy communities, through improving health, social and economic outcomes. As part of this, Sport England revised the 2007 Active Design principles with Public Health England in

2015 to reflect the many changes across the health and planning landscape. Active Design is a guide aimed at urban designers and planners, exploring how we can encourage and promote sport and physical activity through the design and layout of our built environment. A combination of 10 principles that support activity and health, the guidance demonstrates how we can create healthier, stronger communities through the way we design and build our towns and cities.

A critical piece underpinning the implementation of the Active Design principles is the local environment. Design and planning provision needs to be tailored to meet a local communities’ needs, ensuring that measures to encourage activity are applied in the right places at the right time. How communities are designed and adapted to encourage activity should be shaped by those who interact with the environment, and based on how they interact with the environment. For example, Our Parks, an initiative which runs exercise classes in parks across 18 London Boroughs, provides an example of how to make use of a network of parks and open spaces to create opportunities for people to be active within their local communities5 In 2017 Sport England announced an investment of around £100 million of National Lottery funding in 12 local delivery pilots[1], including in Hackney and Southall, to identify better ways to address inequalities and break down the barriers that stop people getting active, from the transport links and street lighting to the quality of parks and open spaces, to how sport and activity is promoted by GPs. As the draft New London Plan prepares to go to examination the Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA), The King’s Fund, and The Young Foundation demonstrate how its healthy communities policies such as Creating a healthy city

www.planninginlondon.com

(GG3) and Health and social care facilities (S2) can be achieved.

Each organisation introduces what it will take to plan, design, build and maintain places in which it is easy for people to live healthy and active lives (the built environment), test new ways of delivering healthcare services and facilities (new care models), and involve communities in the process (Community activation) – see Figure 3.

Figure 1: Tubecreature illustration of life expectancy along tube lines

Future of a healthier built environment Some of the determinants of health such as our homes and neighbourhoods, social networks, natural environment and climate are things that are shaped by the societies in which we live. The planning system has an influence over (although not total control over) many of the wider determinants of health, including people’s lifestyles, their local communities, the local economy, the food environment, enabling services and activities to take place, the built and natural environment, and the mitigation and adaptation of the effects of climate change.

This is supported by PHE’s recent evidence7 resource highlighting key planning principles and guidelines to consider when planning for health, and there is already sufficient evidence exists for policy makers to act upon8.

Those involved in planning and developing new developments and regeneration across London should aim to create healthy environments that enable residents of all ages to make healthy choices with ease, with particular emphasis on (see illustrative Figure 4) 1 Movement and access - Creating a place that prioritises active and inclusive environments which provide easy and safe opportunities for everyone to be physically active through sustainable modes of travel; >>>

Issue 106 July-September 2018

43

HEALTHY NEW COMMUNITIES |MICHAEL CHANG, CHRIS NAYLOR, AMANDA HILL-DIXON AND DELIA BECK

>>>

RIGHT and OPPOSITE: Figure 2: NHS England Healthy New Towns 10 Demonstrator Sites

2 Open spaces, play, and recreation - Delivering a comprehensive network of natural and public open spaces and places that provide for a range of informal and formal activities for everyone’s participation and enjoyment; 3 Food environment - Providing the local community with access to a diversity of food outlets selling healthy food

NHS England Healthy New Towns Demonstrator Sites North Whyndyke Farm, Fylde Fylde Borough Council as lead applicant 1400 homes across 72 hectares 20 hectares of employment land Greenfield site Timeline: Completed by 2031 First occupation Summer – 2018 Darlington Darlington Borough Council as lead applicant, in partnership with public , private and voluntary sector organisations .

3600 homes across 3 sites.

Greenfield and regeneration sites.

Timeline: 2018 for phase one through to 2025.

North West Halton Lea, Runcorn Led by Halton Borough Council.

Building 800 new homes, developing a ‘Health & Wellbeing Campus’.

Brownfield site, mixed-use development and regeneration.

Midlands & East Northstowe Joint bid led by Cambridge Uni. Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, South Cambridgeshire District Council, Homes and Communities Agency.

10,000 homes.

Brownfield development – built on the former RAF Oakington base and surrounding farmland between Cambridge and Huntingdon.

Timeline: 20 years with first occupation in 2017.

South Whitehill and Bordon Led by East Hampshire District Council.

3,350 homes.

44

Planning in London

options, and the opportunity to grow their own food in designated public and private spaces accessible from the home, school, or workplace; 4 Buildings - Constructing high-quality, human-scale buildings with healthy internal and external, working and living environments that promote the long-term health and com-

Old MoD brownfield land.

Mixed-use incl. 84,000sqm commercial space.

Timeline: Complete by 2036.

Bicester, Oxfordshire Led by Cherwell District Council.

6,000 houses in North West Bicester, 13,000 for the whole town.

Greenfield site.

Timeline: first site completed. Expansion over 20 years.

Barton Led by Barton Oxford LLP a joint venture between Oxford City Council and Grosvenor.

885 homes, Barton Park, extension of Barton.

36 hectares (90 acres) Greenfield site adjacent to John Radcliffe Hospital.

Timeline: 2017-2023.

Cranbrook Led by Devon County Council (formerly East Devon District Council in 2016-17).

8,000 homes.

Urban extension on Greenfield land.

Timeline: Phase 1 developed and occupied with further building phases until 2028.

South East and London Ebbsfleet Led by Ebbsfleet Development Corporation.

Up to 15,000 homes and 30,000 new jobs.

Brownfield sites.

Timeline: completion by 2035, with rapid growth of up to 11,000 homes by 2026.

Barking Led by LB Barking & Dagenham.

10,800 houses, 65,500 sqm. commercial and 2,500 new jobs. Brownfield site.

Timeline: Start from 2017, fully built 2031.

fort of their occupants; 5 Neighbourhood spaces and infrastructure - Providing improved access to community and health infrastructure to meet local needs, maximising the potential for redevelopment while also making use of redundant premises and spaces and actively seeking opportunities for co-location; and 6 Local economy - Providing a dynamic environment with accessible local industries, services and facilities, thus helping to secure employment, enterprise and training opportunities for residents and attracting key workers.

The TCPA recognises that these considerations will not necessarily be new to planners and developers, but they do take on an explicit public health perspective, and already complements policies promoted in the draft New London Plan, current local plans and developers’ own approach to place-making9. Those undertaking new developments should consider them in a coherent way, based on local needs and demographic profiles and informed by an up-to-date local health evidence base.

Future of health and care services In areas where new developments are planned, there is a unique opportunity to re-imagine health services and ensure models of care are fit for the future. Health care is changing radically, and The King’s Fund believes planners and developers need to be aware of the implications of this. The ageing population, rising rates of long-term conditions, and persistent inequalities in health between different communities all raise major questions about how health and social care services are organised and delivered. New developments can lead the way in providing bold answers to these questions.

To meet the changing needs of the population, health and care services in the future will need to provide patients with ‘integrated care’ in which different professionals and services

www.planninginlondon.com

work together in a more coordinated way than is often the case today. Services will need to be delivered in community settings wherever possible, with fewer appointments taking place in hospital. Every opportunity should be taken to ensure care is technologically-enabled, with online access to shared electronic medical records and widespread use of digital health technologies. And there will need to be deep and proactive partnershipworking between health and other sectors including housing, planning, education and transport, to tackle the wider social factors that affect health. In short, health care in the future will need to be more integrated, more preventative and more community-focused.

All of this has implications for the design and construction LEFT: of healthy places. To take one example, in many existing comFigure 3 munities a major barrier to implementing new models of care has been the lack of suitable health care facilities. The new care models being developed across England as part of the ‘NHS five-year forward view’ are often based on GPs, nurses and other health and social care professionals working together more closely to support patients. This happens most easily when a range of professionals can be physically co-located in the same building, but the design and size of many GP premises and community health care facilities makes this difficult. This is a particular challenge in London where the high cost of property and land means the NHS has fewer options available to it.

To address these problems, many of the Healthy New Towns new places are looking to develop ‘health hubs’ that allow a range of professionals to practise together under one >>>

Issue 106 July-September 2018

45

HEALTHY NEW COMMUNITIES |MICHAEL CHANG, CHRIS NAYLOR, AMANDA HILL-DIXON AND DELIA BECK

>>> ABOVE: Figure 4: Illustrative elements of healthy development

roof. Sharing a building does not lead automatically to coordinated care or effective team working, but it can certainly help.

And it can also create additional opportunities. For example, in the Barking Riverside development, the aspiration is that the planned health hub will include community-curated spaces that provide a venue for local community organisations supporting people to look after their health and well-being.

Cultivating these sorts of links between NHS services and wider resources available in the local community will be a critical part of the future of health and care, and new developments can serve as a valuable test bed for these sorts of innovations.

Future of healthy communities There is increasing recognition of the importance of the wider social determinants of health; as little as 10 per cent of a population’s health and wellbeing is linked to access to health care10. Factors such as community and social connections, how we travel, our work, neighbourhood surroundings, housing, and the food we eat, all play a vital role in determining our health and wellbeing, as well as our access to public services. The Young Foundation believes, as such, planners and related professionals have a key role to play in shaping people’s health, not only through the built environment but also through social interventions and the shaping and strengthen-

46

Planning in London

ing of future communities. The development of new places offers particular opportunities for designing in the social determinants of health from the outset.

At times, however, as The Young Foundation’s recent research in Essex has shown, new developments can have the opposite effect, disconnecting people and eroding community, as one resident recently told us: ‘These developments are causing the community to fragment, causing people to go their own ways and feel a disconnection from their community’. (Resident in Takeley and Little Cranfield, Essex).

In other places we have found that neighbourhoods of houses are built without the accompanying social infrastructure – such as shops, GP surgeries and other the ‘bumping spaces’ – which are so important in the formation of community bonds11. At a time of decreasing public funds, it is surely more important than ever that we are strengthening the social fabric of communities; for many people they are increasingly the safety net, and in some instances a very effective one.

So how can planners ensure that new developments strengthen communities for the health and wellbeing of residents? The Young Foundation is exploring how new developments, including Barking and Riverside in London, are working to do just this. There are emerging lessons about how planners and developers can work with communities and other part-

As we celebrate the 70th anniversary of the NHS and also the 70th anniversary of the founding legislation of the current planning system, the Town and Country Planning Act, this article highlights the convergence of the two systems, with the wider community involvement agenda, and the opportunities this creates to create healthy environments and promote population health and wellbeing, with many London boroughs willing to experiment and innovate. This will also require enlisting the commitment of developers to this approach, who ultimately finance and build the vast majority of housing for sale or rent. Until the public sector is capable of being a significant actor in the house-building market, collaboration between these systems, cultures and resources will be critical in the successful implementation of the Draft New London Plan for healthy communities.The authors would be particularly interested in any feedback, suggestions or recommendations of good practice examples where such opportunities are being harnessed by councils, health partners, community groups and the third sector across London. ners to ensure that developments strengthen relationships and make for quality, inclusive and sustainable neighbourhoods. Key insights have emerged around community building in these contexts, including the value of: • Enabling mixed and diverse communities, for example through the integration of mixed tenure types within new neighbourhoods. For instance, the Catalyst development of Bonchurch Road in Portobello includes social housing, shared ownership and private ownership, all designed in a ‘tenure blind’ way.

• Creating sustainable community assets and infrastructure, such as Countryside’s provision of a ‘Community Chest’ of £50,000 per year for local community projects in Acton Gardens.

• Engaging and integrating existing and future communities early on and through varied and creative means. For instance, British Land’s development in Canada Water has been working with Global Generation and local residents to create a ‘paper garden’, and also through a free local music festival ‘Musicity’ celebrating local architecture through music.

• Offering ‘meanwhile’ provision, such as pop up cafes or neighbourhood markets, to ensure that community infrastructure exists prior to the completion or full inhabitation of a neighbourhood; it is at these early stages that patterns of movement and connection are often formed • Cultivating a shared sense of community identity and belonging, for instance through local history exhibitions. British Land have engaged in this kind of activity through World on the Water, an exhibition of local history in Canada Water.

It is these kinds of broader and early-stage activities, many of which are illustrated in the social sustainability framework in Figure 5, which focus on bringing people together to create a sense of connectedness and community capacity which are so important in the context of a new town, and which are necessary for more targeted interventions to activate the community for health and for the social sustainability of a new town more broadly. n

2 Lee IM, et al. (2012) Effect of physical inactivity on major non-communicable diseases worldwide: an analysis of burden of disease and life expectancy. The Lancet 380: 219 – 29 cited in Everybody Active, Every Day (2014), Public Health England, page 8.

3 Walking and Cycling Statistics, England: 2016 - Page 10 4 www.england.nhs.uk/ourwork/innovation/healthy-new-towns/ 5 Active Design Case Study. Our Parks: Bringing Activity to the Community (2017), Sport England.

6 https://www.sportengland.org/our-work/local-delivery/local-delivery-pilotsanimation/ 7 PHE, 2017, Spatial Planning for Health. An evidence resource for planning and designing healthier places 8 Townshend et al., 2017, ‘Obesogenic environments: current evidence of the built and food environments’, Perspectives in Public Health, 137(1), pp.38-44 9 TCPA, 2018, Securing constructive collaboration and consensus for planning healthy developments. A report from the Developers and Wellbeing project 10 https://www.health.org.uk/blog/infographic-what-makes-us-healthy 11 https://whatworkswellbeing.org/product/places-spaces-people-and-wellbeing/ SEE ALSO RESEARCH AT https://youngfoundation.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/04/Uttlesford-Community-Action-Zones-Report.pdf

ABOVE: Figure 5: Design for Social Sustainability: A framework for creating thriving new communities (Social Life)

FOOTNOTES: 1 http://tubecreature.com/#/livesontheline/current/same/*/*/TFTF/13/0.1000/51.5200

www.planninginlondon.com

Issue 106 July-September 2018

47

MANUFACTURING | JOSIE WARDEN

Made in London: shaping the city’s manufacturing sector Opportunity for businesses is being constrained by the lack of space and also by the lack of vision from policy makers for the role of manufacturing in the city says Josie Warden

Josie Warden is senior researcher - economy at the RSA

48

Planning in London

Between 2001 and 2015 over 1300 hectares of industrial land in London was transferred to other uses, a figure well in excess of the benchmark figure that had been set out by the Greater London Authority. Low vacancy rates, associated high rents and insecure tenures, are putting pressure on manufacturing businesses across the city. As it develops, how can London support its productive activities and capitalise on opportunities from changing trends in manufacturing?

Cities of Making is a thirty-month project looking at this challenge in London and in two other European cities – Brussels and Rotterdam. The project’s recent report describes London as a city which does not fully recognise the importance of its manufacturing base, and which needs to do more to accommodate and support the sector.

London is still a city which makes Despite a significant reduction in size over the past fifty years, the manufacturing sector remains a significant contributor to London, in terms of both jobs and economic activity.

It employs over 110,000 people (more than are employed by the sector in city regions more commonly perceived as manufacturing strongholds, such as Greater Manchester), and it contributes around £8.5billion of GVA to the city.

Unlike other centres, London has not been well known for a particular sector, as Manchester was for textiles. Rather it has long been home to a wide range of activities, often those close to the end of production chain. This is true of manufacturing in the capital today, which ranges from materials printed by Calverts in Bethnel Green to the 44,000 bicycles produced by Brompton each year in Greenford. The largest subsectors are the manufacture of food products, the manufacture of fabricated metal products, printing and reproduction of recorded media, and wearing apparel. But there are many others besides.

As well as their direct contributions these activities support other sectors of the economy: cultural institutions are provided with costumes and sets, offices with printed materials and fit-outs, and lunchtimes are fuelled by sandwiches. The activities are embedded in the city, and as the population grows more, not less, productive activity is likely to be needed to keep London moving.

Manufacturing is changing In addition to its role in the city today, potential for increasing manufacturing in urban areas is gathering pace.

Developments in technology are set to revolutionise the way products are made – from the use of automation to technologies, like 3D printing, which enable smaller-scale and dis-

tributed manufacturing. For example, another East End company, OpenDesk, run a platform which enables people around the work to buy customisable furniture from local producers.

Consumers are showing an increased interest in the provenance of goods too, and the desire to find locally made and higher quality products. And the rise of makerspaces and other open access workshops – London has over fifty such spaces - is highlighting people’s interest in producing things for themselves.

Where once decline in production seemed inevitable, in favour of offshoring and mass production elsewhere, these trends point instead towards a future where manufacturing within European cities can flourish.

Change is much needed too. Global systems of production and consumption are unsustainable, driving pollution, environmental degradation and resource depletion, not to mention poor working conditions for many in supply chains. Cities are particularly resource intensive and have a role to play in radically changing the way we take, make and dispose of the goods around us. Looking at more local production, including repair and remanufacturing, is one route to doing this.

Space for making In London, manufacturing takes place across the city, from small units to larger factories. Concentrations in employment are found in the outer boroughs where there is more industrial space, and sites like Park Royal are particularly important.

Loss of land for industry has, however, become increasingly well documented. The transfer of industrial space to other uses, including housing, has fast outstripped its planned pace.

Between 2001 and 2015 over 1300 hectares were lost, more than double the benchmark set out by the GLA. This and other results of a growing city with booming land values, such as increased rents and insecure tenancies, are challenging businesses across the city. Machines Room, a makerspace in East London is one of the latest victims of this and had to leave their site on Vyner Street when their rent more than doubled.

And it is not only the small businesses who are affected. For over five years Truman’s Breweries have been looking for a suitable second site in East London to expand their business but have been unable to identify one. The lack of capacity is stifling business growth and development.

Planning policy has provided some protection for industrial space in the form of designated Significant Industrial Locations (such as Park Royal) and Locally Significant Industrial Sites, which seek to protect the larger reservoirs of industrial space in the city. This protection of homogeneous land is important, however the loss of small units of industrial

space outside of these locations is equally problematic.

The negative impact of the reduction in industrial space is now being recognised by the Greater London Authority, and the Mayor’s new London Plan shows a shift in policy with its ambition for there to be no net loss of industrial space across the city. Loss in some sites, however, will still occur. And as areas designated for accommodating large scale development, such as the Old Kent Road, contain significant quantities of industrial space, loss and disruption to businesses is anticipated by many.

The new London Plan places emphasis on intensifying industrial land, and on creating more mixed-use developments where industrial, residential and other employment uses are co-located. Both routes offer potential for tackling the constraints of space in the city and it is positive to see this approach. However, these ideas are not straightforward to execute and there are challenges in both designing and financing any such developments.

London’s manufacturers are often small businesses, 87 per cent of them have fewer than 10 employees. In fact, the capital boasts more of these micro manufacturers than any other area of the country. It is difficult for these many small businesses, often focused on their firm’s day-to-day activities, to have their concerns heard by policy makers in the city. This is particularly true when it comes to issues of spatial planning where large stakeholders dominate the field and technical language can make it difficult for non-experts to engage. In this situation collective voice is important, as we are seeing with the recent campaign from Guardians of the Arches who are seeking to represent the concerns of businesses located in railway arches to Network Rail.

It is challenging for local boroughs to know what manufacturing activities are taking place in their area, how industrial

www.planninginlondon.com

space is being used and what requirements firms have. Where in-depth studies have taken place they provide useful insight, but there are few of them, and the data are not always easily navigable. Little information is available about the way industrial spaces fit within the wider building stock, their relationship with other functions and their development over time – something Colouring London, a forthcoming open-source mapping project may help shine a light on. Gathering and opening-up data about the spatial needs and configurations of manufacturing could help the sector to be better supported in both new developments and in existing sites.

PICTURED ABOVE: Calverts, printers in Bethnal Green

Creating a vision for London’s manufacturing London’s manufacturers help the city to run, provide employment and support skills. The capital possesses a talented workforce and a large and diverse market which, together, give it great potential for enabling innovation in the sector. However, opportunity for businesses is being constrained, most evidently by the lack of space but also by the lack of vision from policy makers for the role of manufacturing in the city. As the Mayor refines his Economic Development strategy, and with a Local Industrial Strategy on the horizon too, a vision for the city’s manufacturing sector should be an integral part of the ambition.

The cities of Rotterdam and Brussels are facing similar challenges in maintaining and providing suitable spaces for a changing manufacturing base as the cities change. The Cities of Making programme aims to share insights across the three locations. In its next phase it will look in detail at how governance and policy, spatial design, and access to materials and technology can help support urban manufacturing. In doing so it hopes to connect with other stakeholders in those cities, and others, who have an interest in this topic. n

Issue 106 July-September 2018

49

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE | JOÃO FERNANDES

How will the way we navigate our towns and cities change?

There are almost infinite ways in which the data gathered by navigation software can be used to improve our lives. The only limit is our imagination says João Fernandes

João Fernandes is founder and CEO of BuzzStreets

50

Planning in London

You have a client meeting in New York at 10am and you’re running late. Fortunately, your AI assistant has already ordered you a self-driving taxi to take you to the airport. Once there you breeze straight through security and are directed to the correct gate, despite the recent change. Your flight boards and a couple of hours later you disembark, hop in another selfdriving taxi, and are navigated to the meeting room within the client’s offices.

No, this isn’t the start of my sci-fi novel, it’s not even a particularly futuristic vision. It’s merely the combination of technologies already coming to maturity.

• AI Assistants. Check.

• Self-driving taxis. Check.

• Tech-enabled airport security. Check.

• Real-time indoor navigation. Check.

• Supersonic aircraft. Check.

We’ve all heard about tech giants competing over AI assistants and self-driving taxis, and the first supersonic aircraft had it’s first flight back in 1969 (although safety issues led to it being pulled in 2013). Now some companies are using KYC technology to enable security checks before you even reach the airport.

It’s not hard to see how these technologies will chain together to allow for swift and seamless travel. The one thing fuelling it all, however, is navigation.

Of course, outdoor navigation technology matured years ago and now we all walk around with a detailed map of the world in our pockets. But what happens when you enter a building? The navigation drops out. That’s because map technology is enabled via GPS – satellite technology. And while that sounds cool and techie, in reality satellites are rubbish at picking up phone frequencies from within buildings.

Navigating a building’s interior Fortunately, solutions to this particular problem have already been developed. Most use Bluetooth beacons positioned around a building’s interior to ping a user’s mobile device, allowing an app to pinpoint the user’s location to within a few feet. Of course, there are more sensitive solutions which allow for centimetre-accurate positioning, but that’s usually overkill for something the size of a person.

These beacons are steadily becoming cheaper and more reliable, making them a cost-effective solution for most large and complex indoor environments, such as hospitals, airports, and sports stadiums. Every environment has its own unique technical challenges to be ironed out, however, meaning indoor navigation requires an expert consultancy rather than a DIY approach.

BuzzStreets, for example, is working on a number of pilot pro-

jects with hospitals, offices, and stadiums to iron out these kinks, while Google is offering DIY indoor mapping without navigation features.

In the very near future, we will see the combination of these technologies, providing a quick and simple solution for businesses and venues of any size. At this point, we will quickly reach a critical mass of businesses providing indoor navigation and the whole world will be navigable – indoors and out. You’ll be able to go from your front door to the specific room, that you need to be in, within the building you are visiting. Navigation will take you all the way – not just to the outside door by reception.

Enjoying the indoor experience Indoor navigation isn’t just about getting people from A to B, however; it’s about the journey and experience as you make that trip from one place to the next.

Indoor environment – particularly commercial spaces like shopping malls – will need to change in order to continue to attract shoppers and fend off the growing ecommerce sector. To do this, shopping malls and individual stores will offer shopping experiences.

Imagine going into a shopping mall and seeing marine animals swimming through the air, with games and news appearing on virtual screens around you. As you approach your favourite footwear shop you can already see whether they have the shoes you wanted before receiving a special discount code. As you step inside the lighting changes and your favourite band plays softly in the corner.

This could be applied to airports, hospital waiting areas, high streets – the opportunities are endless.

Again, this isn’t necessarily a sci-fi vision. BuzzStreets has already been playing around with augmented reality (AR) ideas such as these to offer shoppers and sports fans a rich, immersive environment to explore.

When handsfree, wearable devices become the mainstream, this futuristic vision will become a reality. Until then, we will still need to use our smartphones and tablets as a window to this world.

The power of data Data has become a catch-word over the last few years. It’s BIG, it drives things, and everyone wants a piece of it. It’s been accused of swinging elections and found to help cure cancer.

It’s the new oil.

And anonymous navigation data, especially indoor data, holds a great power: the ability to transform our towns.

For thousands of years we’ve been improving our transport

systems, our public services, healthcare, etc. through a combination of guesswork and scientific research. Results are slow to come and never seem to capture the whole picture.

With nearly 9million people living in London and many, many more coming in to work there every day, London’s planners can’t wait for the results of a five-year trial before making important changes. The world is too complex and fast-moving for that traditional approach. Gathering data in real-time allows us to put our theories to the test, develop new models, and make useful changes quickly and accurately.

How do people move around the town? What route do they take to the airport? Where do they want to park their cars and where do they go afterwards? Which bus stops are underused?

Which routes see very little traffic? Which part of the shopping

centre gets the highest footfall? When are people most likely to buy food at a stadium?

Data can help answer all of these questions and many more.

Planners can optimise town and city environments to improve the user experience, save money, and change our lives. The same approach can also be applied to inanimate objects, such as road cleaning equipment. If you need a specialist piece of equipment, but it’s not where it should be, location data can help you track it down. Perhaps you find that some equipment is regularly moving long distances from one depot to another, in which case perhaps it would save time and money to buy a second machine.

There are almost infinite ways in which the data gathered by navigation software could be used to improve our lives. The only limit is our imagination. n

João Fernandes is the Founder and CEO of BuzzStreets, a B2B navigation and location-based services solution combining indoor and outdoor navigation with technologies such as augmented reality and proximity-triggered offers, to create a bespoke solution for customer engagement. http://buzzstreets.com/

www.planninginlondon.com

Issue 106 July-September 2018

51

O

l * L ia ff NG ec 5 o NNI Sp r ÂŁ PLA ffecode

Oe th

ith w

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

MODULAR HOUSING | BJÖRN CONWAY

Making moves with modular

Björn Conway says this is the year of modular

Björn Conway is CEO of ilke Homes

2018 looks set to be the year where London could truly embrace modular. The city needs to build 50,000 new homes a year to meet its growing housing needs, yet currently traditional house builders and developers are only managing to deliver half the amount of properties required to fulfil the demand. Housing is Mayor Sadiq Kahn’s top priority and with the increasing buy in from decision makers in government and the wider property sector, smart construction techniques such as offsite manufacturing are starting to finally gain real momentum in the capital.

A milestone report published by the London Assembly Planning Committee in November 2017 made the case for the role offsite manufacturing can play in helping to solve London’s housing shortage. ‘Designed, Sealed, Delivered: The contribution of offsite manufactured homes to solving London’s housing crisis’ is an important look at how the Mayor can hit his targets and the property issues that most matter for those living in London, including affordability and home ownership.

In the industry, some of these steps are already being taken. A number of high and low-rise apartment schemes have gained traction particularly in private rented and student accommodation sectors. Pocket Living was awarded £25m in 2017 to build 1,000 modular homes in London, while Elements Europe is work-

www.planninginlondon.com

ing with Hill Bespoke on a new modular site, Orchard Village in Havering.

Earlier this year planning permission was granted in Croydon for the world’s tallest modular towers by Vision Modular for Tide Construction. The tower will overtake the current highest offsite tower, which stands at 32 storeys in New York, by creating two residential blocks of apartments, one of which will be 44 storeys high. This groundswell of activity to build more modular homes signals that we’re on the edge of a tipping point for the industry, and offsite manufacturing is becoming more accepted as a concept.

The power is in the hands of the Mayor, who is best placed to turn the recommendations for offsite construction into a reality for boroughs across the city. Thanks to his control over the policy guidance of the London Plan, established partnerships with housing associations and local authorities, and a current record £3.15 billion of funding for the sector, change could be imminent with his support.

The latest London Plan has been an important guide for ilke Homes across its entire portfolio. In response to the revised space standards, ilke Homes has used requirements to inform all of its house types. The team has also taken inspiration from the vernacular of the local London boroughs, in addition to London typolo- >>>

Issue 106 July-September 2018

53

MODULAR HOUSING | BJÖRN CONWAY

>>> gies and finishes such as mews and town houses – whilst also updating them with a contemporary urban look.

Delivering on compromised sites As part of the London Assembly Planning Committee’s review on offsite, experts including Cast Consultancy and Build Offsite have emphasised the contribution offsite manufacturing can deliver for London by building modular homes on sites that are compromised. To unlock the necessary land to meet the growing housing demand, it’s imperative that we make the most of all available land assets in the city despite the challenges and site constraints. With this in mind, many London boroughs are focussing their efforts upwards; looking at the opportunities rooftops provide.

Building onto the rooftops of existing buildings provides a creative housing solution that can contribute to the delivery of much-needed new homes for London. As there is less land in London that can be developed, its important to utilise the land available in the best way. Working with Engie, ilke Homes is looking to access the GLA’s Innovation Fund to support the delivery of rooftop schemes as well as smaller infill sites.

Modular homes can often lend themselves to compromised sites, thanks to their improved performance – which keeps outside noise to a minimum, in addition to the lighter materials used, and resulting need for shallow foundations. These factors can make a real difference for sites situated near a busy road or railway line which may otherwise be difficult to build on using OPPOSITE and BELOW: traditional methods.

Modular house types by All properties by ilke Homes have a high-performance buildIlke Homes ing fabric that exceeds building regulations by 20 per cent as

54

Planning in London

standard, thanks to the air tight and highly insulated design.

Acoustic testing has also shown properties by ilke Homes to be a third quieter than traditionally built homes.

Rethinking regeneration The pressure on boroughs to deliver more high-quality housing with the least amount of disruption possible, calls for quick timeframes. Estate regeneration programmes can take an average of 10 - 15 years, and in some cases even longer, which can have a take a huge toll on the local communities.

Offsite manufacturing holds the key to speeding up regeneration projects.

At the heart of a well-executed, low-impact regeneration project is minimal disturbance to residents and the wider community. When building modular homes, the timeframe can be cut down by half from 10 years to five in many cases. As the manufacturing of the homes in the factory can take place at the same time as preparation works onsite, partners can have a predictable (and reduced) timeline to work towards.

With modular build programmes, partners also have the benefit of not being affected by poor weather conditions or a lack of skilled workers in a particular area to carry out the build process – as this is undertaken in a factory. A faster build programme means there is less risk involved as the project is less likely to be subject to council and planning changes, meaning its more financially viable.

Infill sites A key priority for London housing isn’t just looking at the larger scale developments but at the huge volume of smaller infill sites to meet the needs of the city’s growing population.

Vacant and under utilised sites hold lots of potential, not only to hit housing targets but for place making and improving areas. Furthermore, infill development offers an opportunity to engage SME developers, contractors and designers as the sites usually require houses or low-rise apartments. The work can be more accessible than the larger developments as the investment and entry costs aren’t comparatively as high. It also leaves a lot of room for innovation, which is where offsite manufacturing and modular can come into its own. Volumetric offsite house providers such as Ilke Homes can deliver and install up to 10 homes in a day minimising disturbance to neighbouring residents and accelerating development.

Infill schemes have long been part of London’s housing approach yet there has not been a comprehensive strategy for these sites as a typology, however this is looking to change. The GLA has increased funding and 250,000 homes are scheduled to be built in small infill sites over next ten years, so ilke Homes is working with boroughs to plan how they can support through the building of high-quality modular houses and apartments.

Addressing the skills shortage One of the biggest challenges facing house builders is the skills shortage, which is only set to worsen and impact the industry’s ability to meet build targets. The number of people in the UK taking up apprenticeships since the Apprenticeship Levy was introduced has fallen by 41 per cent according to the Department of Education. This challenge, along with the backdrop of an aging construction workforce and threat of a hard Brexit, calls for alternative solutions to support traditional house builders to meet London’s ambitious growth targets.

Offsite manufacturing doesn’t rely on conventional construction skillsets, as the workforce required is mainly for manufacturing roles located in a factory. The factories can give an economic boost to the communities they’re based in through creation of a new, stable jobs, which thanks to the factory environment and regular hours, are often more inclusive for a wide range of people.

By providing new jobs at factories across the UK, offsite manufacturing offers the opportunity for London and the regions to contribute to each other’s growth and potentially create a more balanced economy.

Ilke Homes has created over 800 new manufacturing and support roles at our specialist factory in Harrogate, Yorkshire.. Units manufactured at this factory will be transported across to sites in

www.planninginlondon.com

London, and other areas in the UK. Often when businesses are bidding for construction projects, a key factor that contributes to a successful bid is evidence of the ability to employ staff from the local area. Now, with the need to produce additional housing using new methods, commissioning agencies and clients will have to consider the wider benefits for employment in the UK and the boost offsite construction can bring to the economy.

London’s Mayor has previously expressed a commitment to supporting the Northern Powerhouse, as he recognises the importance of a collaborative approach for the UK. As some regions will not have their own offsite factories, a strong network and cooperation will be vital.

Scaling up to deliver for London Ilke Homes’ target is to deliver 2,000 modular homes a year across the UK within the first two years, with a target of 5,000 homes a year by the end of 2020. We’re ambitious with our plans to scale up and provide homes for Londoners who need it most, working with our partners in the city. In the last year, we’ve seen a surge in interest for modular homes, and support from both Government and industry. We hope this continues, and our ambition to help address the UK housing crisis is realised. n

Issue 106 July-September 2018

55

COUNCIL HOUSING | LUKE TOZER

Wandle Road, Croydon A scheme which shows what a forward thinking London Borough is capable of says Luke Tozer

Luke Tozer its a partner in Pitman Tozer Architects

56

Planning in London

The regeneration of Croydon, led by the borough, through its housing company Brick by Brick, continues to grow apace.

Last month our scheme for them at Wandle Road was awarded planning permission for a 25-storey mixed-use development of 128 new homes above flexible office, retail and leisure space.

Wandle Road provides 50 per cent affordable homes on a challenging site adjacent to Croydonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Old Town. It is one of a number of schemes commissioned by Brick by Brick (BXB) which is currently working to deliver 2000 new homes on multiple sites throughout the borough.

As an outer London borough, Croydonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s character varies widely from the very suburban, almost rural, outer edges, to the high density, increasingly tall urban centre. Wandle Road is currently a car park, adjacent to the flyover, which has lain undeveloped since the construction of the A232 in the early 1970s.

During the 20th Century, the city was increasingly shunned as options for cheap and easy mobility attracted populations to an illusion of rurality. Croydon has suffered from this flight and the A232 flyover was constructed to facilitate easy car access into and out of the city, to and from the rural idyll. The site at Wandle Road is a direct result of this exodus as the new road cut through the fabric of the edge of the old town.

As a studio much of our work is in urban areas, places where space carries a premium, where valuable land needs careful planning to provide buildings for shelter, for work, and leisure.

The city is a focus for human activity where scarce resources are shared and optimised rather than wasted in the provision for humanityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s needs - efficiencies of land use, power and transportation enable the provision of housing, workspace, healthcare, parks and gardens, arts and entertainment venues on a large scale, not possible in a suburban or rural situation.

Wandle Road supports the modern reversal of this trend, as a generation in an age of communication are increasingly attracted back to our urban centres and inner urban districts, with their enhanced opportunities for direct connections, work and culture. Former areas of heavy industry as well as struggling suburbs are displaying a capacity for reinvention. Fish Island Village at Hackney Wick, where we are currently working for Peabody and Hill, alongside Haworth Tompkins and Lyndon Goode, is another example of this.

Regenerated and newly invented urban quarters are attracting new citizens and loyal followings. High market value is now placed on formerly marginal land in these places if they can be optimised intelligently, with good design, with outcomes that consider the long term.

But the city is a more complex and difficult place to build than greenfield sites and inner city sites require specialist skills and technical, planning and design wherewithal. The design at Wandle Road delivers highly organised architecture that has to

overcome many, often competing technical challenges to create enjoyable places for people to live and work. The air quality is poor. It is noisy. It floods. The good aspect overlooks the flyover. It needed to allow for a bus interchange next door on one side and a potential new energy centre on the other.

Our experience working for Peabody, at Mint Street, adjacent of an elevated railway in Bethnal Green, where we faced many of these challenges, was a starting point. The use of wintergardens as an acoustic and visual buffer that provides useable amenity space was further developed at Wandle Road.

Working closely with the same environmental engineers, Max Fordham, the design responds to the challenges from the flyover of poor air quality, noise and solar gain. The deeply articulated brick elevations are designed to mitigate solar gain and provide passive shading and noise attenuation within deep set reveals.

The site is also in close proximity to several key Conservation Areas and visible from local listed buildings. With increased height comes increased visibility and responsibility to enhance rather than harm the skyline and local heritage.

Designed as a composition of articulated volumes with elegant vertical proportions, the proposals provide a distinctive landmark which signifies a sense of arrival and departure to and from Croydon city centre. The massing of the scheme as part 25 and 23 storey conjoined tower, above a plinth of office space, helps to break its profile into a cluster of slim, tall and elegant elements. Each floor within the tower is a stacked floor plate of six flats, comprising three 2-bedroom flats and three 1bedroom flats per floor, accessed via a single core with two lifts, creating an efficient, viable and repeatable layout.

The integration of a variety of uses as well as attractive places to work and socialise as well as live adds to the richness and complexity of the building. The elevations were composed to make a positive contribution to streetscape; they attempt to help complete, not disrupt, the urban block, by providing a strong street edge and by integrating multiple uses over different floors.

The new public space, on the corner of Wandle Road and Scarbrook Road is part of the commitment to enhancing and expanding the public realm, for the benefit not only residents and building users but the wider community. In the post Grenfell era as a studio we especially conscious of the deep responsibility we have as designers to make a positive contribution to create safe, enjoyable, enduring places for people to live and work.

Architecture is an important part of urban cohesion - the wrong solution can tear city fabric, the right one stitch it together. At Wandle road we have attempted to repair the urban fabric and tie it together in a number of ways - through urban continuity and the optimisation of a site and by promot-

ing the active and passive interaction of daily life that makes a city work.

That this redevelopment of a difficult site is being led by the local authority development company in helping to meet their housing targets, with 50 per cent affordable housing, along with

www.planninginlondon.com

the wider regeneration benefits, shows what a forward thinking London Borough is capable of. Jo Negrini, Croydonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s dynamic Chief Executive, was recently recognised for her public sector leadership in being awarded NLA New Londoner of the Year 2018. n

Issue 106 July-September 2018

>>>

57

BUILD TO RENT | AMANDA BALSON AND HEIDI DUNCAN

Policy starts to recognise value of Build to Rent There has been a notable shift in planning policy across London in terms of recognising the important role of the Build to Rent sector say Amanda Balson and Heidi Duncan

Amanda Balson is executive director at Nexus Planning and Heidi Duncan a senior planner

58

Planning in London

The Build to Rent sector is now making a significant contribution to London’s housing needs. In London, there are approximately 60,000 new Build to Rent homes that have either been completed, are under construction, or have been granted planning permission1.

It is worth clarifying upfront that the Build to Rent sector is sometimes referred to as the Private Rented sector. Despite sometimes being used interchangeably, the terms mean different things. In particular, the private rented sector comprises any property that is privately owned and being rented out as housing, and as such covers a wide range of property types and tenancy lengths. The Build to Rent sector solely refers to those developments that are built specifically for renting. The primary motivation of Build to Rent investors is to keep their developments, fully-occupied with satisfied tenants. As such Build to Rent developments offer a number of additional facilities and services that sets them apart from other private rented properties, including longer term tenancies, good onsite amenities, and onsite management.

As the market continues to mature, established developers and institutional investors are embracing the evolving opportunities offered by changing home ownership attitudes.

However, despite an increasing market acceptance of the advantages of this type of accommodation, the Build to Rent sector faces a number of challenges.

Planning Policy In the last 12 months there have been a number of improvements in terms of planning policy facilitating Build to Rent development. In February 2017, the Housing White Paper was released, which emphasised the need to diversify the UK’s housing market, with Build to Rent developments encouraged.

To support this outcome, the Paper introduced two key proposals. The first proposal comprised of potential changes to the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF) so that local planning authorities know they should plan proactively for Build to Rent.

The second proposal was to make it easier for Build to Rent developers to offer affordable private rental homes and to facilitate family-friendly tenancies of three or more years. It is understood the Government’s work on these matters is ongoing.

The Draft National Planning Policy Framework released for consultation in March 2018 has recognised Build to Rent as a type of development for the first time. The Draft NPPF includes a definition of Build to Rent within the Glossary, and includes Build to Rent within its definition of affordable housing. Whilst the Draft NPPF doesn’t actively promote or provided detailed guidance about Build to Rent development, the recognition and definition of the sector within this national

legislation is a step in the right direction to putting Build to Rent at the forefront of planning policy.

In August 2017, London saw some key improvements, with the Greater London Authority’s (GLA) adoption of the Homes for Londoners Affordable Housing and Viability Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) 2017. Amongst other things, this document provides a formalised definition of Build to Rent, which clearly delineated the term from the ‘private rented sector’, and enabled a degree of consistency across London planning authorities. The GLA’s definition of Build to Rent ensures development must: 1. be a development, or block/phase within a development, of at least 50 units; 2. hold its constituent homes as Build to Rent under a covenant for at least 15 years; 3. provide units that are all self-contained and let separately; 4. operate under unified ownership and management; 5 offer longer tenancies (three years or more) to all tenants, with break clauses that allow the tenant to end the tenancy with a month’s notice any time after the first six months; 6 offer rent certainty for the period of the tenancy, the basis of which should be made clear to the tenant before a tenancy agreement is signed, including any annual increases which should always be formula-linked; 7. include on-site management, which does not necessarily mean full-time dedicated on-site staff, but must offer systems for prompt resolution of issues and some daily on-site presence; 8 be operated by providers who have a complaints procedure in place and are a member of a recognised ombudsman scheme; and 9 not charge up-front fees of any kind to tenants or prospective tenants, other than deposits and rent-in-advance.

The recently released Draft London Plan (2017) has also progressed policy guidance relating to Build to Rent. Policy H13 of the Draft relates solely to Build to Rent developments, identifying that such developments can play a huge role in accelerating housing delivery. The Draft London Plan (2017) provides a similar definition of Build to Rent as is presented in the Affordable Housing and Viability SPG 2017, but also requires that such developments allow for “a clawback mechanism is in place to recoup additional affordable housing contributions in the event of the covenant being broken”.

The Draft London Plan (2017) also enables Build to Rent developments to be assessed through a ‘fast track route’. This process enables certain Built to Rent schemes that meet or exceed minimum affordable housing provisions, comply with certain tenure mixes, and address other planning requirements and obligations, to proceed through ‘fast-tracked route’ without the submission of a viability assessment.

Overall, there has been significant progress with respect to Build to Rent in planning policy over the past year within London. The Housing Affordability and Viability SPG (2017) and Draft London Plan (2017) have introduced key policy guidance for identifying, categorising and incentivising Build to Rent developments. Whilst it is positive to see that the GLA is beginning to provide central guidance to support the evolution of the Build to Rent sector, the onus is still on individual planning authorities to take the lead with respect to facilitating delivery.

At a local level however, of the 33 Local Authorities operating in London, approximately half make no reference to Build to Rent in their adopted or emerging planning policy. Just over 30 per cent of Local Authorties in London have clear, positive positions on the sector, evident through policies or guidance relating to Build to Rent. Whilst the remaining Local Authorities’ planning policy and/or guidance documents acknowledge the Build to Rent sector, they do not provide clear policy to assist with delivering such developments.

Of the Council’s with a positive policy position towards Build to Rent, London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, for example, has made marked progress; with their new draft Local Plan, which was submitted for consultation in February 2017, identifying Build to Rent as a key avenue for boosting accommodation across the Borough.

The Borough’s draft policy includes a range of affordable housing outcomes for Build to Rent schemes such as discount market rent using the London Living Rent as a benchmark as well as a new policy regarding ongoing site management.

London Borough of Southwark has more than three times the national average of social housing and more than any other London Borough at 44 per cent. This commitment to affordable accommodation for its residents is reflected in the New Southwark Plan, a Preferred Option, published in June 2017, which includes a detailed policy regarding the Build to Rent sector.

In particular Policy DM4 of the New Southwark Plan states that: “Planning permission will be granted for purpose built, private rented homes: 1. Which are secured for the rental market for a minimum 30 year term with tenancies which last a minimum of three years; 2. That meet Southwark’s Private Rent Standard; 3 That provide a high standard of security and management; 4. That provide an equivalent amount of affordable housing to conventionally funded schemes, in accordance with DM1.”

Policy DM4 is unashamedly pro Build to Rent development, and provides qualified support for schemes that meet specific criteria, such as providing more than 100 new homes and meeting obligations around issues such as site management and rent affordability. This approach is enabling the swift, positive assessment of purpose-built Build to Rent schemes within Southwark.

Another local authority making headway with Build to Rent planning policy is London Borough of Camden. The Borough was one of the first local authorities in London to adopt a positive position in regard to the Build to Rent sector. In July 2017, the new Camden Local Plan was adopted, which takes a clear and positive position on Build to Rent, and is likely to facilitate continued growth in the sector within the borough.

The new Local Plan recognises that “financial viability for

www.planninginlondon.com

build-to-let development is different from developments built for sale because returns are realised over a longer period and may mean that the appropriate level of affordable housing provision is lower.” The Council also prescribes that they “will be flexible in the application of affordable housing and dwelling size policies to develop build-to-let housing where we consider such housing will help create mixed, inclusive and sustainable communities.”

These outcomes are recognised in Policy H2 – Maximising the supply of self-contained housing from mixed-use schemes; Policy H4 – Maximising the supply of affordable housing; Policy H6 – Housing choice and Mix; and Policy H7 – Large and small homes of the Camden Local Plan. As such, it is evident that London Borough of Camden understands that viability of Build to Rent developments differs from the viability of build for sale schemes, and should therefore be assessed accordingly.

The policies outlined above provide some of the best practice approaches currently in place within current and emerging local planning legislation across London.

Design Considerations Build to Rent brings its own unique challenges when it comes to design. The variety of approaches that Build to Rent schemes can take offer a range of solutions in terms of layouts, the provision of private spaces and facilities on site and how a scheme is branded.

The UK does not have a history of building rental accommodation for multi-person households, with current rental stock largely made up of converted family homes. Due to this deficiency, private rented housing is more likely to be overcrowded, poorly maintained or ill-suited to the tenants needs compared with privately owned homes or social rented housing. The design of large-scale Build to Rent schemes offers a huge opportunity to tackle these issues and re-think the priorities of renters.

While there are many reasons that people rent, not least rising house prices making home ownership unaffordable, there are also those who rent out of choice. Many young professionals value location, flexibility, lifestyle and facilities more than owning their own home and are willing to rent long-term if they can find a place that fits their needs and budget.

Renters tend to be more concerned about pounds per month than pounds per square foot and a key design challenge for Build to Rent developers is creating compact apartments that are well designed so as not to feel small. If located close to amenities and transport links and with adequate community spaces, renters are more likely to accept smaller living spaces.

Although it is unlikely that the London minimum floorspace standards will be changed in the short term, innovative new layouts should be considered if we are serious about achieving viable units for the Build to Rent market.

There is an opportunity for Build to Rent developments to brand themselves in a similar way to student accommodation or even boutique hotels. This can be achieved through the architecture, interior furnishings or through the offering of shared facilities such as pools, fitness centres, multi-use workspaces and shared roof gardens.

Shared facilities help build a sense of community and, when combined with good customer service, will lead to brand loyalty, something that we already see in the US multi-family rental

Issue 106 July-September 2018

>>>

59

BUILD TO RENT | AMANDA BALSON AND HEIDI DUNCAN

>>>

FOOTNOTES: 1 http://www.bpf.org.uk/whatwe-do/bpf-build-rent-map-uk 2 https://www.propertywire.co m/news/uk/private-rentedsector-uk-likely-grow-242021/ 3 https://gkstrategy.com/buildrent-sector-can-solve-housingcrisis/

model. Having shared spaces, such as laundry facilities and outdoor terraces, can also allow certain spaces to be omitted from the apartments themselves, reducing apartment sizes and consequently costs. At large scale these shared facilities become much more viable.

The design of a Build to Rent scheme also has to consider the long-term rental usage of the building. They should be designed for easy long term maintenance, as operators will want to attract new tenants on a regular basis. This might mean a higher quality and durability of the finishes and furnishings and the use of the same style and products across multiple schemes.

The limitations of design codes and spatial standards do not at present account for the modern and innovative approaches being taken by Build to Rent developers.

Ongoing Management Quality of management of Build to Rent schemes post-completion is key to the viability and confidence in the sector long term. However, many developers do not have the skills in place to become long-term managers, and so may pass management of their schemes on to third parties. Only the emerging specialist Build to Rent developers are geared up for this, but they make up only a small number of developers in the market building new homes.

Again, housing associations have the potential to become key players as many will be able raise the capital to finance large private rented schemes. In addition, their existing affordable housing portfolios give them both “asset management expertise” and “a strong platform to offer a professional service to tenants.”

The viability of large-scale Build to Rent developments can hinge on strong long term management structures to ensure

that the upfront investment can be returned over a known period. Issues such as viability are likely to be eased as the sector matures and the optimisation of management practices long term improves security of investment upfront.

Next Steps One avenue worth investigating further is whether London’s Boroughs could become Build to Rent developers themselves.

In the last few years some London boroughs have started to form their own development companies, independent from, but owned by the Council. These companies could use their own land to build largescale Build to Rent schemes with the rent taken in, ensuring a long-term steady revenue stream which could be reinvested in essential services and fund more affordable forms of housing.

Build to Rent is an important and growing part of the UK housing market with the potential to substantially increase housing supply. The Build to Rent sector is currently worth £25 billion2 and set to rise to £70 billion3 in the UK over the next five years with London accounting for more than half of the new homes either under construction or in the pipeline.

Over the last 12 months, there has been a notable shift in planning policy across London in terms of recognising the important role of the Build to Rent sector in helping provide quality homes in the Capital. There is still much to do however.

A number of challenges facing the Build to Rent sector exist, some of which have been discussed above.

Nonetheless, it is important to continue to identify and address the challenges affecting the sector and to ensure that Build to Rent can continue to grow, evolve and improve. If carried out effectively, the sector can prove itself able to make a real and positive impact on housing supply in London and throughout the UK. n

20% Discount with this Flyer

Parking and the City Donald Shoup, University of California - Los Angeles, USA

April 2018: 514pp Hb: 978-1-138-49703-0 | $140.00 Pb: 978-1-138-49712-2 | $54.95 eBook: 978-1-351-01966-8

Parking and the City reports on the progress cities have made in adopting three reforms: (1) remove off-street parking requirements, (2) charge the right prices for on-street parking, and (3) spend the meter revenue to improve public services on the metered streets. The successful outcomes provide convincing evidence that Shoup’s policy proposals were not theoretical and idealistic but instead are practical and realistic. The good news about our decades of bad planning for parking is that the damage we have done will be far cheaper to repair than to ignore.

The 53 chapters by 46 authors in this book show how reforming our misguided and wrongheaded parking policies can do a world of good.

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

60

Planning in London

MINERALS AND SAFEGUARDING | DAVID PAYNE

Safeguarding of London’s minerals infrastructure Boroughs need to ‘make the link’ between minerals and mineral products, development, the economy and quality of life explains David Payne

The London Plan sets out ambitious proposals for delivery of housing, economic development and improvements to infrastructure. These are well understood – by the public, policy makers and decision takers. Less well appreciated is the need for a steady and adequate supply of raw construction materials to deliver this, where these come from, and how they are delivered and distributed.

Non-energy minerals supply is the biggest materials flow in the economy. Minerals and mineral products, such as aggregates, are essential in all types of construction. London alone needs around 10 million tonnes of primary aggregates (sand, gravel and crushed rock) every year1- 30,000 tonnes every single day - to build, maintain and improve housing, buildings and infrastructure. It also uses around two million tonnes of recycled and secondary aggregates, primarily from demolition waste.

Minerals can only be extracted where they occur, and London has few available indigenous mineral resources. The vast majority (97 per cent) of these raw materials are imported into London, including four million tonnes of sand and gravel dredged from the seabed and landed at London wharves or delivered by rail from wharves in Kent and Suffolk, and a similar amount brought by rail from Somerset and Leicestershire. Smaller tonnages are imported by road from neighbouring areas.

These materials are delivered to wharves and rail depots that handle these aggregates for onward distribution across the capital. The use of water and rail freight to deliver materials to the heart of the city reduces the need for long distance lorry movements, with every aggregates train the equivalent of 75 lorries

ABOVE: Figure 1.

Consumption of Primary Aggregates in London 2016

and every dredger the equivalent of 250 lorries.

So, wharves and rail depots, as well as other mineral products manufacturing facilities such as concrete batching and asphalt plants, are critical to the sustainable supply chain of construction materials to London. However, they are also vulnerable - to direct loss through change of use or constraints on operations due to proximate development that is sensitive to noise.

Wharves and rail depots need to be able to operate 24/7, reflecting availability of freight train slots and the state of tides.

The need for additional housing and plans for regeneration has led to conflict with site operations in a number of areas, with >>>

David Payne is Senior Planning Advisor of the Mineral Products Association

www.planninginlondon.com

Issue 106 July-September 2018

61

MINERALS AND SAFEGUARDING | DAVID PAYNE

>>> concerns that noise nuisance will lead to restrictions on operations. Once lost, these strategically important sites won’t be replaced, cutting off supplies of the raw material that feeds construction in London. This is particularly an issue for waterfront sites, but also previously-developed land close to rail stations.

Safeguarding of wharves, rail depots and other minerals infrastructure from loss or constraint due to other types of development is required by national policy, and the Draft London Plan takes a very welcome and robust approach to the safeguarding in a number of policies relating to aggregates (SI10), water transport (SI15), and freight and servicing (T7).

The ‘agent of change’ principle (Policy D12), initially applied to music venues, has the potential to be particularly helpful for safeguarding of wharves and rail depots from proximate development. This puts the responsibility for mitigating the impact of noise on new development, so where this is close to existing noise-generating uses, applicants will need to demonstrate design measures to reduce their sensitivity.

Such an approach has already been taken in Greenwich Millennium Village where the design, fabric and layout of a large flatted development reflects the proximity to the The Mineral Products Association (MPA) is the trade association for London’s largest aggregate wharves (Angerstein and Murphy’s) the aggregates, asphalt, cement, where 3mt of aggregate is landed each year, as well as a range concrete, dimension stone, lime, mortar and silica sand industries. of other infrastructure. Although directly adjacent to the With the affiliation of British wharves, the development includes mitigation measures such Precast, the British Association of as small and sealed windows on the elevation facing the wharf Reinforcement (BAR), Eurobitume, QPA Northern Ireland, MPA Scotland and the British Calcium Carbonate Federation, it has a growing membership of 500 companies and is the sectoral voice for mineral products. MPA membership is made up of the vast majority of independent SME quarrying companies throughout the UK, as well as the 9 major international and global companies. It covers 100% of UK cement production, 90% of GB aggregates production, 95% of asphalt and over 70% of readymixed concrete and precast concrete production. Each year the industry supplies £20 billion worth of materials and services to the Economy and is the largest supplier to the construction industry, which had annual output valued at £151 billion in 2016.

Industry production represents the largest materials flow in the UK economy and is also one of the largest manufacturing sectors. For more information visit: www.mineralproducts.org.

For further information, please contact Robina Longworth at robina.longworth@mineralproducts.org.: 020 7963 8017

62

Planning in London

area, changes to internal layout, and a large acoustic barrier between blocks. However, these measures were hard-won through many years of challenge and negotiation by the wharf operators. However, ensuring such measures are incorporated elsewhere, including in developments on the adjacent bank of the Thames, has proved more difficult.

While the London Plan provides a strong framework for ensuring that sites are safeguarded, and that supplies are maintained, implementation will be primarily through London Boroughs applying these policies when developing local plan policies, allocating sites and in development management decisions. The under-resourcing of planning departments and an almost complete lack of minerals planning experience or knowledge in boroughs does not help. Such under-resourcing and paucity of expertise is reflected at national level in MHCLG (which currently has no dedicated minerals planner) and to an extent in the Planning Inspectorate.

The MPA, working with its member companies, will continue to work with and with partners at the Port of London Authority and the Mayor’s planning team to help implement safeguarding. We are keen to engage directly with Boroughs to help them ‘make the link’ between minerals and mineral products, development, the economy and quality of life. n 1

GLA (December 2016) Local Aggregates Assessment for London 2016 and London Aggregates Working Party (December 2017) Aggregates Monitoring Report 2016

LAND VALUE CAPTURE | JONATHAN BOWER AND SARA WEX

Land value capture and why it matters The Mayor is exploring LVC. A pre-requisite would be a more interventionist approach to land assembly by both the GLA and boroughs say Jonathan Bower and Sara Wex

Jonathan Bower is a partner at Womble Bond Dickinson; Sara Wex is the Practice Development Lawyer for the Planning and Infrastructure team

Land value capture (LVC) has no legal definition, it describes a concept, which is, in its broadest sense, that value increases of land arising from public investment in infrastructure or development, are monetised. The underlying concept is uniform, but the mechanisms and reasons for wishing to implement this idea are various.

A combination of governmental fiscal stress, an acute need to increase the delivery of housing (including affordable housing), and need for private investment in infrastructure mean these positions are again being debated and as a consequence LVC has moved up the political agenda.

The current Government's Housing White Paper pledged to consult on capturing uplifts in land value1, and a parliamentary inquiry was opened in January 2018 on, "the effectiveness of current LVC methods and the need for new ways (…)."

The Labour Party Manifesto in 2017 pledged to consider a land value tax2, and its social housing review now informs Labour's recently published Green Paper3. A new duty to deliver affordable homes is proposed together with 'English Sovereign Land Trust' to enable more proactive buying of land at a price closer to existing use value.

What current methods for LVC exist?

In practice a mixture of approaches and methods to monetising land value uplift can usually be found to co-exist. The community infrastructure levy (CIL) and planning obligations focus on gains at the point of development, but planning obligations are more context dependent with contributions shaped by local planning policies and negotiation.

The CIL Review Group4, recommended the replacement of CIL with a new streamlined low level tariff (the Local Infrastructure Tariff (LIT)) applied to all development, combined with Section 106 for 'larger' / 'strategic' sites requiring direct mitigation. The review also recommended enabling Combined Authorities (CAs), to collect a ‘Mayoral’ type CIL, termed the 'Strategic Infrastructure Tariff' (SIT).

The 2017 Autumn Budget announced a forthcoming consultation on the process of setting and revising CIL, making it easier to set a higher 'zonal CIL' in areas of high value uplift, eg around stations. It also announced that government would give CAs and planning joint committees with statutory plan-making functions the option to levy a SIT in future and that this would be additional to CIL. The implication is that CIL will remain, potentially simplified, and that the Government intends to introduce a SIT 'over the top' of CIL. The London Mayoral CIL was one of the first levies to be brought into effect and is generally acknowledged to have been an effective source of funding for Crossrail. The rates are currently being updated through a revised charging schedule, which is due to be examined later in 2018. The intention is to use it to

www.planninginlondon.com

fund Crossrail 2.

What additional LVC methods may be considered?

The 'premium' on transport projects may be monetised by the landowner in letting at a premium rent, or selling to realise a capital gain. Julian Ware, Head of Major Project Funding TfL, gave evidence to the HCLG Committee that circa. 65 per cent of project created value uplift in a London context finds its way into the residential market.

The Government invited TfL in the 2016 Spring Budget to submit detailed proposals for funding London transport projects using LVC. In early 2017 the results of a joint technical study by TfL and GLA was published5 (the TfL report).

The TfL report suggests that a system of zonal 'transport premium charges' would allow the property tax system to extract the transport premium from both residential and commercial premises.

In searching for new sources of finance for infrastructure, TfL, GLA and government have considered the development rights auction model (DRAM). This involves a 'transit authority' working with urban planners to prepare an integrated zonal development plan (ZDP) for areas of influence around the station locations on a new rail project, where the potential for development is significant. The ZDP sets desired uses and densities for developable sites across each zone to maximise value creation.

The planning authority secures outline planning across the zone, alongside any consents for the transport scheme. It then calculates the 'no scheme world' value for land across the zone and offers landowners the option of pooling their properties into an auction and splitting proceeds accrued over 'no scheme world' values.

Owners may develop the land themselves, but subject to zonal CIL set to capture broadly equivalent revenues to what the authority would expect to receive through the auction. Owners could also 'do nothing', but would be restricted from altering the density or changing the use of their land.

The trade-off for the authority is that it does not seek to capture all of the value uplift, but instead leaves the majority of the gain with the landowner as the incentive (suggested 60:40 split), to participate voluntarily.

The TfL Report suggests DRAM would raise twice as much (£3bn as opposed to £1.5bn) across sample projects such as Crossrail 2.

Capturing land value uplift and enabling land pooling to increase housing delivery Research commissioned by the GLA6 (the GLA report) identifies that mobilising, assembling and preparing land in multiple ownerships is now a key obstacle to doubling house-building rates in London. Drawing on international examples and >>>

Issue 106 July-September 2018

63

LAND VALUE CAPTURE | JONATHAN BOWER AND SARA WEX

>>> London's past, the GLA report sets out, in ten recommendations how a new model for land pooling is key to achieving the GLA's draft Housing Strategy7.

In summary, the public sector identifies and designates strategic sites/ areas where land assembly will be supported, through intervention if required (Land Assembly Zones (LAZ)). Key to the LAZ is 'in principle' approval of compulsory acquisition powers, if necessary. At LAZ designation, land values would be 'frozen' at the market value and crystallise any hope value for the purpose of fixing the share of the pool. To encourage owners to pool land in advance of CPO for FOOTNOTES commercial reasons, the time frame for the CPO would be the 1 Housing White Paper (7 February 2017) page 85. same as achieving a master plan for the LAZ. 2 Page 86, 'For the Many not the Some submissions to the LVC Committee Inquiry suggest Few', 16 May 2017. that changes, in particular the Land Compensation Act 1961, 3 Green Paper, 'Housing for the Many', March 2018. are required to ensure that when valuing land no account 4 'A New Approach to Developer should be taken of any prospective development value. We Contributions, October 2016.

5 LVC, Final Report, TfL. consider that this is based on a misunderstanding about how 6 'Capital Gains': A better land the existing statutory provisions provide for compensation to assembly model for London', urbed, February 2018. The author be assed in practice. For full and clear explanation of this point of this article was a member of the we recommend the Compulsory Purchase Association's written Research Advisory Group. submission to the LVC Committee Inquiry together with the 7 Consultation closed on 7 December 2017. paper delivered by Richard Harwood QC for the 2018 CPA's 8 The CPA response to The HCLG Annual law Reform Lecture8.

Committeeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s review of LVC, February 2018 9 Consultation until 2 March 2018 with EiP due in the autumn.

10 John Wacher, Strategic Planning Manager Viability, GLA in giving evidence to the LVC Committee on 4 June 2018 referred to the TfL Report but indicted that the DRAM model may not be that useful in London Q109.

64

Planning in London

What's next? - or 'someone must pay' A new draft London Plan was published in December 20179 Addressing the increasingly acute housing crisis with Londonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s population is key to the plan, with many proposed in designated Opportunity Areas (OAs) clustered into Growth Corridors which are focused around key transport nodes and planned transport infrastructure.

The Mayor is seeking clarity from government on the availability of investment for much-needed infrastructure, and seeking further devolution of fiscal powers in line with the recommendations of the LFC. The Mayor is also exploring LVC, and looking at how private investors can play a bigger role in investing in the upfront costs of infrastructure, including exploration of options for piloting a DRAM10.

A pre-requisite would be a more interventionist approach by both the GLA and boroughs to land assembly. A DRAM model would require the London Boroughs and transport undertakers to take on, for less monetary return risks similar to those which developers take. The development industry's modus operandi would also need adjustment. The LVC Inquiry continues to take evidence. The 11 June session focussed in on New Towns and 'hope value', while in the wider LVC discussions the Director of Policy, British Property Federation suggested that the sector broadly supports the strategic infrastructure tariff route. It will be interesting to see the report and recommendations when these are published. n

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: ‘DESTINATION ARCHITECTURE’ REVIEWED BY ANDREW CATTO

Destination Architecture Destination Architecture Phaidon, £19.95, 560pp reviewed by Andrew Catto

On the cover Phaidon describe this new guide book as ‘the essential travel guide to contemporary buildings’, and therein lie both its strengths and its weaknesses. In this new book Phaidon’s editorial team have gathered brief descriptions, and as a guide book should, full addresses to help you find them, of 1000 buildings from across the world ranging from the tiny and quirky to the ‘too big to ignore’, but mostly either big, public or both.

It’s not new idea, but none the worse for that. General guide books tend to concentrate on the historic, whilst architecture fans want to find the new as well. My bookshelf still holds Ian Nairn’s Modern Buildings in London, now over 50 years old but even today a useful reference. A lot else has been built since Nairn, and we need a regular flow of new guides to keep up. But perhaps this new book is too resolutely Now, with nothing more than about 20 years old, which leads to some odd omissions now that Modern Architecture is well in to its second century.

Nairn could still reach back to include Tecton’s Penguin Pool and Holden’s pre-war suburban Underground stations. Phaidon’s London has the Shard but not Lloyds.

The new book aims to be a world wide guide, which should be welcomed when too much of the coverage of modern buildings we see is confined to the publicity seeking architecture (architects?) of Europe, North America, and Japan. Sadly the editors seem to have used the same sources to compile their top 1000. As a result Africa hardly shows, with just 16 buildings for

Andrfew Catto is principal of Andrew Catto Architects

www.planninginlondon.com

the whole continent. The Jinhua Architecture Park in China gets as many entries. The Middle East outside of Israel fares even worse – 2 buildings each for Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi and Dubai (and not the tourist draws you might expect). 11 buildings in Singapore, but nothing in Malaysia, Indonesia etc.

It might have been better to face up to this, or publish this book in three thinner volumes - Asia, Europe and the America.

This would also help with the other weighty disadvantage of this volume as a guide. Guide books need to travel with you. This book is little bigger in format than many ‘pocket’ city guides, but at 560 pages in hard covers is simply too big and heavy to be a travel companion. Take notes before you go, then leave it at home or in your hotel.

Sadly at the same time it’s not big enough.

Targeting 1000 buildings within this format reduces each entry to a uniform half page with a single smallish photograph, generally of the main façade, and four lines of description, no more than 50 words, supplemented with a full address, the name (often just as an abbreviation) of the architects and a useful symbol indicating if there’s public access. There’s access to a higher proportion than you might expect, partly due to a lack of private houses in the collection. At the back is a useful list of web sites and ‘phone numbers for all these, plus photo credits (but why not next the pictures?) and two indexes, one by place and the other by architect.

For most of the entries that one picture and 40-50 words is simply not enough to go beyond the basics, inspire me to go and take a look, nor to give any real feeling of what these buildings might be like inside.

For it to be Destination Architecture we need to believe that what we are off to see is, as Michelin Guides used to say ‘vaux la journee’. n

Issue 106 July-September 2018

67

BOOKS: COMING SOON!

68

Planning in London

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REFERENCE GUIDE

Planning and Environment Reference Guide Please notify any changes immediately by e-mail to jon.manns@gmail.com cc to planninginlondon@mac.com with the subject ‘planning in london directory’.

>>>

www.planninginlondon.com

Issue 106 July-September 2018

69

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REFERENCE GUIDE

Lucy Taylor DirectorofRegeneration and Planning Policy taylorl@ ealing.gov.uk 020 8825 9036 N oelRutherford DirectorofBuiltEnvironm ent rutherfordn@ ealing.gov.uk 020 8825 6639 PatHayes Executive DirectorRegeneration & Housing hayesp@ ealing.gov.uk 020 8825 8280 London Borough ofEnfield

Tim .jackson@ greenw ich.gov.uk 020 8921 5463

Planning ControlM anager helen.oakerbee@ havering.gov.uk 01708 432800

Sue Sew ell Head ofDem ocratic Services sue.sew ell@ greenw ich.gov.uk 0208 921 5670 Andrew Parker Planning M anager(M ajorDevelopm ents) Andrew.parker@ greenw ich.gov.uk 020 8921 5875

Sim on Thelw ell Planning ControlM anager(Projects and Com pliance) sim on.thelw ell@ havering.gov.uk 01708 432685 London Borough ofHaringey Level6 RiverPark House 225 High Road W ood Green London N 22 8HQ

M artyn Thom as Developm ent& TransportPlanning M anagerm artyn.thom as@ havering.gov.uk 01708 432845

020 8489 1400 http://w w w.haringey.gov.uk/planning London Borough ofHackney Environm entand Planning Hackney Service Centre 1 Hillm an StreetE8 1DY 020 8356 8062 http://w w w.hackney.gov.uk/planning PO Box Civic Centre, SilverStreet Enfield EN 1 3XE 020 8379 4419 http://w w w.enfield.gov.uk/planning Rob Leak ChiefExecutive Chief.executive@ enfield.gov.uk 020 8379 3902 Joanne W oodward Head ofPlanning Policy Joanne.w oodward@ enfield.gov.uk 020 8379 3881 Bob Griffiths AssistantDirectorPlanning,Highways & Transportation Bob.griffiths@ enfield.gov.uk 020 8379 3676 Andy Higham Head ofDevelopm entM anagem ent Andy.higham @ enfield.gov.uk 020 8379 3848

Tim Shields ChiefExecutive tim .shields@ hackney.gov.uk 020 8356 3201 John Allen AssistantDirectorofPlanning and Regulatory Services john.allen@ hackney.gov.uk 020 8356 8134 RandallM acdonald Head ofSpatialPlanning 020 8356 8051

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

John Com ber ChiefExecutive John.com ber@ greenw ich.gov.uk 020 8921 6426

London Borough ofHam m ersm ith & Fulham Ham m ersm ith Tow n Hall Extension King Street London W 6 9JU 020 8748 3020 http://w w w.lbhf.gov.uk/planning

PatCox Head ofPolicy & SpatialPlanning Pat.cox@ lbhf.gov.uk 020 8753 5773 John Finlayson Head ofPlanning Regeneration John.finlayson@ lbhf.gov.uk 020 8753 6743 Ellen W hitchurch Head ofDevelopm entM anagem ent ellen.w hitchurch@ lbhf.gov.uk 020 8753 3484

M ike How s AssistantDirectorofPlanning m ike.how s@ greenw ich.gov.uk 020 8921 5363

M atin M iah Head ofRegeneration & Developm ent m atin.m iah@ lbhf.gov.uk 0208 753 3482

70 86 Planning PlanningininLondon London

Dan Haw thorn AssistantDirectorforRegeneration Dan.haw thorn@ haringey.gov.uk 020 8489 5678

London Borough ofHillingdon Civic Centre, High Street Uxbridge UB8 1UW 01895 250111 w w w.hillingdon.gov.uk/planning Jean Palm erO BE Deputy ChiefExecutive and Corporate DirectorResidents Services jean.palm er@ hillingdon.gov.uk 0189 5250622 N igelDicker Deputy DirectorofResidents Services N dicker@ hillingdon.gov.uk 01895 250566

London Borough ofHarrow PO Box 37 Civic Centre, Station Road Harrow HA1 2UY

M ichaelLockw ood ChiefExecutive leaders.appointm ents@ harrow.gov.uk 020 8863 5611 Caroline Bruce Corporate Director-Environm ent& Enterprise caroline.bruce@ harrow.gov.uk 020 8416 8628 PaulN ichols DivisionalDirectorofPlanning paul.nichols@ harrow.gov.uk 020 8736 6149

Jam es Rodger Head ofPlanning and Enforcem ent jam es.rodger@ hillingdon.gov.uk 01895 250230 JalesTippell Deputy DirectorPolicy,Highways and Com m unity Engagem ent jales.tippell@ hillingdon.gov.uk 01895 250230

London Borough ofHounslow Civic Centre Lam pton Road Hounslow TW 3 4DN 020 8583 5555 http://w w w.hounslow.gov.uk/planning M ary Harpley ChiefExecutive m ary.harpley@ hounslow.gov.uk 020 8583 2012

Juliem m a M cLoughlin DirectorforPlanning juliem m a.m cloughlin@ lbhf.gov.uk 020 8753 3565

Pippa Hack (Acting)DirectorofRegeneration, Enterprise and Skills Pippa.hack@ greenw ich.gov.uk 020 8921 5519

Tim Jackson AssistantDirectorofTransportation

Stephen Kelly AssistantDirectorforPlanning stephen.kelly@ haringey.gov.uk

020 8863 5611 w w w.harrow.gov.uk/planning

N igelPallace ChiefExecutive nigel.pallace@ lbhf.gov.uk 020 8753 3000 RoyalBorough ofGreenw ich Council The W oolw ich Centre 35 W ellington Street London SE18 6HQ 0208 921 6426 http://w w w.royalgreenw ich.gov.uk/planning

Lyn Garner DirectorofRegeneration,Planning and Developm ent lyn.garner@ haringey.gov.uk 020 8489 4523

Fem iN wanze Head ofDevelopm entM anagem ent fem i.nwanze@ hackney.gov.uk 020 8356 8061

Sharon Davidson Planning Decisions M anager Sharon.davidson@ enfield.gov.uk 020 8379 3841 David B Taylor Transportation Planning David.b.taylor@ enfield.gov.uk 020 8379 3576

N ick W alkley ChiefExecutive nick.walkley@ haringey.gov.uk 020 8489 2648

London Borough ofHavering Tow n Hall, M ain Road Rom ford RM 1 3BD 01708 433100 https://w w w.havering.gov.uk/planning CherylCoppell ChiefExecutive cheryl.coppell@ havering.gov.uk 01708 432062 Andrew Blake-Herbert Group DirectorforCom m unity and Resources (Deputy ChiefExecutive) Andrew.blakeherbert@ havering.gov.uk Helen O akerbee

Brendon W alsh DirectorofRegeneration,Econom ic Developm entand Environm ent brendon.walsh@ hounslow.gov.uk 020 8583 5331 M arilyn Sm ith Head ofDevelopm entM anagem ent M arilyn.sm ith@ hounslow.gov.uk 020 8583 4994 Ian Rae Head ofRegeneration & SpatialPlanning ian.rae@ hounslow.gov.uk 020 8583 2561

Roy Thompson Director of Place roy.thompson@rbk.kingston.gov.uk

Simon.williams@merton.gov.uk 020 8545 3680

Andrew Darvill Assistant Director of Traffic and Transport a.darvill@richmond.gov.uk 020 8891 7070

London Borough of Islington 222 Upper Street London N1 1XR 020 7527 6743 http://www.islington. gov.uk/ services/planning Lesley Seary, Chief Executive lesley.seary@islington.gov.uk 020 7527 3136 Karen Sullivan Service Director of Planning & Development Karen.sullivan@islington.gov.uk 020 7527 2949 Eshwyn Prabhu Team Leader for Planning & Projects eshwyn.prabhu@islington.gov.uk 020 7527 2450 Victoria Geoghegan Head of Development Management & Building Control Victoria.Geoghegan@islington.gov.uk Andrew Marx Deputy Head of Development Management & Building Control, Andrew.marx@ islington.gov.uk 020 7527 2045

London Borough of Lambeth Phoenix House 10 Wandsworth Road London SW8 2LL 020 7926 1180 http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/planning Sean Harriss Chief Executive sharriss@lambeth.gov.uk 020 7926 9677 Alison Young Divisional Director for Planning, Regeneration and Enterprise Neil Vokes Project Manager in Planning, Regeneration and Enterprise NVokes@lambeth.gov.uk Rachel Sharpe Divisional Director Housing Strategy and Partnership rshape@lambeth.gov.uk

Sakiba Gurda Planning Policy Team Leader sakiba.gurda@islington.gov.uk 020 7527 2731

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea The Town Hall, Hornton Street London W8 7NX 020 7361 3000 planning@rbkc.gov.uk www.rbkc.gov.uk/planning Chief Executive Nicholas Holgate chief.executive@rbkc.gov.uk 020 7361 2299 Graham Stallwood Executive Director of Planning and Borough Development Graham.Stallwood@rbkc.gov.uk 020 7361 2612

Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Guildhall 2, High Street Kingston upon Thames KT1 1EU 020 8547 5002 www.kingston.gov.uk/planning Bruce McDonald Chief Executive bruce.mcdonald@kingston.gov.uk 020 8547 5150 Darren Richards Head of Planning and Transport darren.richards@rbk.kingston.gov.uk 020 8547 5933

www.planninginlondon.com

Jon Freer Assistant Director, Development and Street Scene j.freer@richmond.gov.uk 020 8891 7319

London Borough of Newham Newham Dockside 1000 Dockside Road London E16 2QU

Philip Wealthy Head of Policy and Design p.wealthy@richmond.gov.uk 020 8891 7320

020 8430 2000 www.newham.gov.uk/planning Kim Bromley-Derry Chief Executive Kim.bromley-derry@newham.gov.uk Jackie Belton Executive Director for Strategic Commissioning Jackie.belton@newham.gov.uk

Robert Angus Development Control Manager r.angus@richmond.gov.uk 020 8891 7271

VACANT Director for Commissioning (Planning & Regeneration)

London Borough of Lewisham Town Hall, Catford London SE6 4RU 020 8314 6000 http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/planning Barry Quirk CBE, Chief Executive barry.quirk@lewisham.gov.uk 020 8314 6447 Gavin Cooper, Development Manager gavin.cooper@lewisham.gov.uk 020 8314 9271 John Miller, Head of Planning john.miller@lewisham.gov.uk 020 8314 8706 Chris Brodie, Growth Area Manager chris.brodie@lewisham.gov.uk 020 8314 9162

London Borough of Merton Merton Civic Centre London Road, Morden Surrey SM4 5DX

020 7525 3559 www.southwark.gov.uk/planning Deirdra Armsby Head of Planning and Physical Regeneration deirdra.armsby@newham.gov.uk London Borough of Redbridge 128-142 High Road Ilford, London IG1 1DD

Ged Curran Chief Executive chief.executive@merton.gov.uk 020 8545 3332

Eleanor Kelly Chief Executive eleanor.kelly@southwark.gov.uk 020 7525 7171 Deborah Collins Strategic Director of Environment & leisure deborah.collins@southwark.gov.uk 020 7525 0899

Roger Hampson, Chief Executive roger.hampson@redbridge.gov.uk 020 8708 2100 Fiona Dunning Head of Development Management 020 8708 2052 Fiona.dunning@redbridge.gov.uk 020 8708 2052 Mark Lucas Head of Inward Investment & Enterprise 020 8708 2143 mark.lucas@redbridge.gov.uk John Pearce Head of Planning Policy and Environment 020 8708 2843 john.pearce@redbridge.gov.uk 020 708 2843 Amrik Notta Head of Building Control 020 8708 2521 amrik.notta@redbridge.gov.uk 020 8708 2521

London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames Civic Centre 44 York Street Twickenham TW1 3BZ

020 8545 3837 http://www.merton.gov.uk/planning

London Borough of Southwark 160 Tooley Street London SE1 2QH

Translation Error.

020 8554 5000 http://www.redbridge.gov.uk/Planning

Translation Error

d.barnes@richmond.gov.uk 020 8891 7477

020 8891 1411 www.richmond.gov.uk/planning

London Borough of Sutton 24 Denmark Road, Carshalton, Surrey SM5 2JG 020 8770 5000 www.sutton.gov.uk/planning Niall Bolger Chief Executive niall.bolger@sutton.gov.uk 020 8770 5203 Ade Adebayo Executive Head Asset Management & Planning & Capital Delivery ade.adebayo@sutton.gov.uk 020 8770 6349 Eleanor Purser Executive Head of Economic Development Planning and Sustainability eleanor.purser@sutton.gov.uk Simon Latham Executive Head Housing and Regeneration simon.latham@sutton.gov.uk 020 8770 6173 Mary Morrissey Strategic Director Environment, Housing and Regeneration mary.morrissey@sutton.gov.uk

Gillian Norton Chief Executive g.norton@richmond.gov.uk 020 8891 7908

Chris Lee Director of Environment & Regeneration chris.lee@merton.gov.uk 020 8274 4901

Paul Chadwick Director of Environment p.chadwick@richmond.gov.uk 020 8891 7870

London Borough of Tower Hamlets Mulberry Place 5 Clove Crescent London E14 2BE

Simon Williams Director of Community and Housing

David Barnes Head of Development and Enforcement

020 7364 5009 http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/planning

Issue 106 July-September 2018

>>>

71

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REFERENCE GUIDE

Aman Dalvi OBE Corporate Director for Development & Renewal Aman.dalvi@towerhamlets.gov.uk Owen Whalley Service Head Planning and Building Control owen.whalley@towerhamlets.gov.uk 020 7364 5314 Paul Buckenham Development Manager 020 7364 2502 Adele Maher Strategic Planning Manager 020 7364 5375 Jackie Odunoye Head of Strategy, Regeneration & Sustainability, Development and Renewal jackie.odunoye@towerhamlets.gov.uk

Forest Road London E17 4JF 020 8496 3000 http://www.walthamforest.gov.uk/planning Martin Esom Chief Executive martin.esom@walthamforest.gov.uk 020 8496 4201

Greater London Authority City Hall, The Queen's Walk London SE1 2AA 020 7983 4000 https://www.london.gov.uk/ Boris Johnson Mayor of London mayor@london.gov.uk 0207 983 4000 Colin Wilson Senior Manager, Development & Projects

https://www.westminster.gov.uk/planning

Ken Jones Director of Housing & Growth Ken.jones@walthamforest.gov.uk 020 8496 5309

Nigel Granger, Development Management East Area Manager ngranger@wandsworth.gov.uk 020 8871 8415

Ron Presswell, Design & Conservation Ron.presswell@walthamforest.gov.uk 020 8496 6736

Mark Hunter Development Management Nine Elms Opportunity Area Manager mhunter@wandsworth.gov.uk 020 8871 8418

Barry Smith Operational Director City Planning bsmith@westminster.gov.uk 020 7641 2923

John Stone Head of Forward Planning and Transportation jstone@wandsworth.gov.uk 020 8871 6628

Ben Denton, Executive Director for Growth, Planning and Housing bdenton@westminster.gov.uk 020 7641 3025

colin.wilson@london.gov.uk 020 7983 4783

Charlie Parker, Chief Executive cparker@westminster.gov.uk 020 7641 2358 John Walker Operational Director Planning Delivery Unit jwalker2@westminster.gov.uk 020 7641 2519

Martin Scholar Strategic Planning Manager (Planning Frameworks) martin.scholar@london.gov.uk 020 7983 5750

info@designforlondon.gov.uk

Graham Clements Senior Strategic Planner Graham.clements@london.gov.uk 020 7983 4265

Urban Design London Palestra 197 Blackfriars Road London SE1 8AA 020 7593 9000 www.urbandesignlondon.com

enquiries.br@communities.gsi.gov.uk planning.policies@communities.gsi.g ov.uk

Christine McGoldrick Strategic Planning Manager (Development Plans) christine.mcgoldrick@london.gov.uk 020 7983 4309

Design for London City Hall, The Queen's Walk More London, London SE1 2AA

Justin Carr Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions) justin.carr@london.gov.uk 020 7983 4895

Department for Communities and Local Government 020 7944 4400

sponsored by

Please complete and mail or fax the form below or click SUBSCRIBE at www.planninginlondon.com and pay with PayPal or credit card

Magazine of the Year (non-weekly) International Building Press Awards WINNER 2007 & finalist 2006 – 2012 & 2016-2017 London Councils, Addleshaw Goddard, pglaw, Howard Kennedy, L B Ealing, Brockton Capital, Hayes Davidson, Newzeye.com, Random House, DCLG, Transport for London, LSE Library, Deloitte Real Estate, London Councils, Circle 33 Housing, P&O Estates Ltd, Greenwich University, Steer Davies Gleave, City of Westminster, British Architectural Library, CBRE, Delancy, PDP London, Bellway Homes, Jestico & Whiles, London & Quadrant, Ecology Consultancy Ltd, Tesco Plc, Ramboll, Harvard College Library, London Wharf PLC, L B Islington, L B Greenwich, Sport England, Entec UK, Berkeley Group, Workspace Group, LB Bexley, RBK&C, RTPI, LB Bromley, PRP Architects, Durrants, British Land Company, L B Islington, CBE, GL Hearn, Holistic, White Young Green, Dentons, i-Document Solutions, Trowers & Hamlin, British Land, Montagu Evans, Precise Media, Lichfields, L B Merton, Speechly Bircham, TP Bennett, The London Society, Ebsco, Turley, Munkenbeck & Partners, Terence O'Rourke, Assael Architecture, Metropolitan Workshop, Urban Research, AMEC,GLA, LCR Stations and Property, Terence O'Rourke, Rolfe Judd Planning, Southbank University, Lurot Brand, Slaughter and May, Alliance Planning, Harvard College Library, Cluttons, DPP, Savills, Henley Business School, Grosvenor, Sainsbury's, Hamptons International, Barratt Homes, National Grid, Network Rail, Foster + Partners, PRP, Gorkana Group, London & Continental Railways, LCA, Cardiff University, Indigo ...

... Just some of the firms and organisations who have taken their Planning in London subscription. ONE YEAR FOR JUST £99.

To subscribe: click on www.planninginlondon.com or please return this form. A subscription is a licence for 5 copies emailed in PDF format.

Please supply up to 5 email addresses to planninginlondon@mac.com

Planning in London

Paul Martin, Chief Executive pmartin@wandsworth.gov.uk Nick Calder Head of Development Permissions ncalder@wandsworth.gov.uk 020 8871 8417

Keep taking your PiL!

72

City of Westminster Westminster City Hall 64 Victoria Street, London SW1E 6QP 020 7641 6500

Lucy Shomali Director of Regeneration & Growth lucy.shomali@walthamforest.gov.uk 020 8496 6734

London Borough of Waltham Forest Town Hall,

OTHER ORGANISATIONS

Head of Planning, Policy & Strategy Head of Building & Dev Control London Borough of Wandsworth Town Hall, Wandsworth High Street London SW18 2PU 020 8871 7620 www.wandsworth.gov.uk/planning

I would like to subscribe from:

Go to planninginlondon.com > Subscribe and pay online with Translation Error.

last issue 105 April 2018 this issue 106 July 2018 next issue 107 October 2018

I enclose a cheque for £99.00 (no VAT, payable to Planning in London) I am interested in advertising in the Advice directory (£300 for one year) Please debit my card £106 (£99+£6.00 for administration, no VAT) Card type:

VISA

MASTERCARD

Card number: Expiry date:

security no:

Signature:

Tel:

Firm:

Up to 5 Email addresses:

Card billing address:

Invoice address if different:

Post cheque to: Planning in London, Studio Petersham, Gorshott, 181 Petersham Road TW10 7AW for the attention of Natalie Barratt

SHAPING LONDON | SIR TERRY FARRELL

The streets we choose

Farrells reflect on autonomous vehicles and future placemaking by Katerina Karaga

Katerina Karaga is an associate at Farrells

Two years ago, here at Farrells we began to explore the likely impacts of the autonomous vehicles on our future streets and places (PiL issue 98, July-September 2016). With advances in knowledge and predictions, we provide an update on how our own analysis and thinking has moved on.

We recently demonstrated our vision of how we can ‘Reclaim the Streets’ in our entry for an international competition organised by World Architecture News, and we were delighted to be the only UK participant in a global shortlist of 12 with a strong concept. Our multi-ethnic team of urban designers and architects: Neil Bennett, Giulia Robba, Daria Zakharova, Jaewon Shin, Edward Powe and myself, pulled together a vision which I am going to capture in this article.

Working with the unknown variables on how future transport will change and how soon that change will happen, here at Farrells we are continuously challenged in the creation of our masterplans and buildings for the future, some looking even 40 to 50 years ahead, as our clients come to us to plan major strategic moves. One example is a UK Town Centre delivery masterplan, first of its kind, necessarily offering flexibility in its delivery to allow for on-going radical change in patterns of activity form and fabric powered by rapid changes in technology, whether AVs or new ways of living and working.

Whether we are looking at the transitional period of the

www.planninginlondon.com

more intense introduction of AVs or connected vehicles on our streets, a complete transformation to driverless cars only, or even flying cars and drones, our goal is to use this opportunity of the future dramatic modal shift to create a better public and street environment, a harmonious and democratic one, putting people first.

In the anticipation of the autonomous vehicle occupying our streets and technology changing the way we socialise, where should we lead the change? How should we use these drivers of change to create cities that enhance human interaction and build strong communities? How should we use the modern and ever changing technology to take control of our streets and public spaces?

Our vision is to liberate the spaces between our buildings for the benefit of all.

We used a London example, the busy thoroughfare of Euston Road, to imagine the potential benefits and transformational change of a city with driverless and connected vehicles. And not only passenger vehicles, the dramatic change actually can happen, when all other vehicles that take up much of the space in the cities, such as buses, refuse trucks, delivery vans, trailers and similar are replaced by driverless-vehicles.

We believe autonomous vehicles and AI will enable us not only to reduce the amount of space for vehicles and free up the >>>

Issue 106 July-September 2018

73

SHAPING LONDON | SIR TERRY FARRELL

>>> streets of redundant street signage and traffic lights, liberating it for alternative uses, but also to manage minute-by-minute the street space and movement capacity, enabling fluid use of unused road space, across the network.

Imagine children playing in the middle of Euston Road, New York’s Fifth Avenue or Paris’s Champs-Élysées. Imagine the complete lack of any vehicles, even on the busiest roads. The very same roads where people could practice yoga in the morning, have lunch on green meadows at noon and watch a movie in movable pods at night. Imagine that our congested streets become nomadic landscapes responding to our continuously changing needs.

Cities could become an ever-changing pop-up theatre. In our vision, the space is democratic, it belongs to all and responds via an app to the needs and wishes of those around it – flexible streets 24/7.

In a smart city of the future, streets and public spaces will be fluid, transformable and pollution free. AVs will give us the opportunity to change our streetscapes and rebalance their amenity. This will shift our current perception towards streets and promote long term wellbeing and a healthy lifestyle.

Transitions between the phases will be smooth, responsive, and as frequent as we want, controlling the vehicular movement.

This will collectively re-shape the nature of the streets through an app with a voting system.

Local communities can decide what they need, e.g. at what part of what day they want their street closed for any traffic and

74

Planning in London

the mobile park is delivered. Suddenly, every house has a park address for a period. Social infrastructure will be made more accessible and citizen-led initiatives can request for mobile wellbeing and healthcare facility, a library or even a mobile pirate play area.

In this democratic society, we will be enabled to make our own choices for our outside space.

During the night streets could become surface AV parks, situated close to the morning users thereby minimising AV travel time to stations, such as Euston Station. AV pods could also be used as sleep cabins, extensions of our homes, nomadic hotels, or offices and more of a social space and not only as a means of transport.

This adaptive and people-centric streetscape will, with time, establish efficient patterns of redistribution of assets to where they are needed. Looking ahead, the new street mobility will bring opportunities in suitable business models for streets and public spaces, maintenance, and governance.

Our vision is for all our streets and public spaces to be shaped by citizens.

People will retake possession of the streets, using a bottomup approach, the opposite of the current top-down decision model applied by governments and transport organisations.

With the best use of technology to reclaim our streets, the new urban dynamic should create a stronger society - a society celebrating human interaction and responding to the needs of the local community, reclaiming our streets as people places. n

>>>

www.planninginlondon.com

Issue 106 July-September 2018

75

w w w. s e r v i c e p r i n t. n e t

printing? flyers • brochures • reports • binding • Scanning posters • tender bid printing • Plan printing & more! free quote 020 3176 6878 info@serviceprint.net

COMPETITIVE PRICES

1000 1000 500

a5 flyer

99

£

a4 flyer £

149 £29.99 W

price list business cards 85mm x 55mm

100 ............................ £9.99 250 ........................... £19.99 500 ......................... £29.99 1000 ...................... £49.99 350gsm Standard matt single sided (price per name)

Roller Banners 80cm x 200cm.... £55 85cm x 200cm.... £65 100cm x 200cm....£75 Standard banner prices based on ordering 6+

Posters

A2 Standard......... £7 A1 Standard......... £12 A0 Standard......... £22 A2 Photghraphic. £10 A1 Photghraphic.£18 A0 Photghraphic.£30 Discounted prices

BIZ CARD

e have over 20 years

We deliver

experience in the print industry and we pride ourselves on personal service and quality print production.

professional fast high quality printing service

our location Service print @ The Leather Market Trowbray House Unit TRB3 London SE1 3QB

ADVICE ADVICE

Planning and Advice

tow n planning consultants indigoplanning.com

O ld Bank C ham bers London R oad C row borough TN 6 2TT

Telephone:!01892 610408 M rAndy Stevens andy@ asplanning.co.uk w w w.asplanning.co.uk

Planning Services Services Planning In our predominantly Green Belt area obtaining In our predominantly GreenofBelt obtaining planning consent or change use area can be a chalplanning orChartered change ofTown use can be a challenge. Ourconsent team of Planners have lenge.

Our team of Chartered Town Planners havea years of experience, dealing with everything from years experience, dealing withdevelopment. everything from a gardenofplot to a major housing They garden plot towith a major housing development.

They work closely our land and new homes departwork our landand andrural new service homes department closely and ourwith agricultural department ment. and our agricultural and rural service department.

Our specialist services include: Our specialist services include: Advice on general planning regulations and restricAdvice tions. on general planning regulations and restrictions.

Preparing, submitting and negotiating planning Preparing, submitting and negotiating planning

applications. applications.

Advising on and submitting planning and enforceAdvising on and submitting planning and enforcement appeals. ment appeals. at Development Plan reviews.

Representations Representations Development Planfor reviews.

Advising on theatplanning potential change of Advising the planning foretc. change of use of all on buildings i.e. barn potential conversions use of allwith buildings barn conversions Dealing listed i.e. building consent. etc.

Dealing withresidential listed building Promoting andconsent. commercial developPromoting residential and commercial development. ment.

Advising and representing parties on development Advising andother representing parties on development options and related interests in land. options and other related interests in land.

Advice on the development of strategic land.

Advice onPlanning: the development of strategic Contact Call 01293 824354land.

Contact Planning: Call 01293 824354

Planning solved by design Planning consultants and architects w w w.bw cp.co.uk

www.planninginlondon.com www.planninginlondon.com

To advertise here forjustÂŁ300 p.a. please em ailplanninginlondon@ m ac.com Issue Issue 106 July-September 2018 105 Aprilâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;June 2018

77 91

REGI ww

STER

w.l on

TO A

do

TTEN

nb

uild

DF

exp O R F o.c R E E om

23 - 24 OCTOBER IN PARTNERSHIP WITH OLYMPIA LONDON

8

LEARN. NETWORK. WIN BUSINESS.

ATTEND THE LEADING

construction & design show for London EVENT FEATURES

300+ EXHIBITORS | 200+ INDUSTRY SPEAKERS | 220+ CPD SESSIONS 9 DEDICATED ZONES

London Design ZONE

BIM & DIGITAL construction

PLANT & MACHINERY

SUSTAINABILITY ZONE Product Innovation

BUILDINGS

ZONE

ZONE

Interior & fit-out

fire safety Z O N E

INTERESTED IN EXHIBITING? GET IN TOUCH WITH THE TEAM:

enquiries@londonbuildexpo.com | 0203 058 2350 | www.londonbuildexpo.com