IBP – International Building Press MAGAZINE OF THE YEAR (non-weekly) FINALIST 2018
Regulars
Issue 110 July-September 2019
www.planninginlondon.com
OPINIONS pages 10-19 ¡PILLO! page 28 ANDY ROGERS page 42 PLANNING AUTHORITY PERFORMANCE pages 30-33
GOOD DESIGN AND HOUSING: Valuing good design – Alison Coutinho p7, Derelict towers – Peter Rees p10, Bartlett to review housing design quality p20 and Matthew Carmona p44, A distinctively local approach – Andrew Beharrell, Ben Williamson, Simon Bayliss, Stephen Proctor & Tricia Patel p68 and Leader: Caution! Council house-building in progress page 5 THE ESSENTIAL GUIDE TO DEVELOPMENT IN THE CAPITAL
Please subscribe: page 88
!
CONTENTS
page 5 LEADERS Caution! Council house-building in progress; Grading Metropolitan Open Land 7 PICTURE FEATURE Valuing good design – Alison Coutinho 10 OPINIONS Patchy urbanisation reveals urgent demographic challenge – Nick Easen; Planning and heritage - a fixable problem – Jonathan Thompson; More planning flexibility should help London’s high streets – Carl Dyer; “In 80, 90, 100 years’ time I fear we’ll have the Thames lined with derelict towers.” – Peter Rees; Putting the ‘POP’ into privately owned public spaces – Constantina Avraamides; Broken records, Housing delivery continues to fall short in London – Ian Tasker; More housing needs flexible tenure and funding models – Lawrence Bowles
NEW USES FOR THE HIGH STREET Félicie Krikler page 65
20 BRIEFING Bartlett school of planning is to undertake a national review of housing design quality; Who runs my council?; Heathrow reveals plans for expansion; Approval rates across London boroughs; Slowdown in permissions continues; SAVE’s rival scheme for parliament relocation dismissed; New DLR trains in 2013; London's 'neighbourhood planning deserts’; Epping Forest top for green belt housing; Deloitte’s London Office crane survey 29 LETTERS From: Michael Bach & Andrew Rogers; Clipboard 28 ¡PILLO! 30 PLANNING PERFORMANCE Downward trend continues for applications and decisions and permitted development PN approvals 34 LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM Town centres, building council houses & London Plan EiP update 39 High Barnet 2019 A Portrait of a District Town Centre – Drummond Robson 43 ANDY ROGERS Are you properly qualified for the job?
KEY TO THE COVER clockwise from top left: Coldharbour Road _vPPR architects; Standard Barratt home; HTA’s Officers’ Field; Kindred House Croydon by Pitman Tozer; Aylesbury Estate renewal by HTA; Hellman, extracted from ecotowns cover to PiL 64; McGrath Road by Peter Barber Architects, photo: Morley von Sternberg – featured in our last issue, PiL 109
www.planninginlondon.com
44 HOUSING DESIGN QUALITY Auditing England – Matthew Carmona 46-62 REIMAGINING SPACES advertising feature from Momentum Transport Consultancy
Continues next page >>>
Issue 110 July-September 2019
3
CONTENTS CONTINUED
>>> 63 PLANNING FOR THE 24-HOUR CITY The city lights are extra bright…they shine for us tonight – Sue Chadwick and Reza Newton 65 NEW USES FOR THE HIGH STREET This is not the end; it is just the start – Félicie Krikler 68 DISTINCTIVELY LOCAL A distinctively local approach to designing homes fit for the future – Andrew Beharrell, Ben Williamson, Simon Bayliss, Stephen Proctor & Tricia Patel 74 FIRE SAFETY Managing fire safety in a change of use building – Anthony Cassidy
BOOKS Good Clean Fun: A Social History of Britain’s First Holiday Camp – Jill Drower page 79
77 INSULATION The importance of breathability – James Ayres
RIGHT: ¡PILLO! page 28 Terry Farrell by Louis Hellman
79 BOOKS Good Clean Fun: A Social History of Britain’s First Holiday Camp. So how come the historians keep getting it wrong? asks the author, Jill Drower 81 Collaborative Construction How proven collaborative models and processes can move from the margins to the mainstream, explains author David Mosey
85 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REFERENCE GUIDE Contacts in all London boroughs and more
89 SHAPING LONDON Royal Albert Dock – a modular masterplan – Megan Jones
88 SUBSCRIPTION FORM Keep taking your PiL!
91 ADVICE Consultants and services >>> Publishing Editors: Brian Waters, Paul Finch and Lee Mallett editor@planninginlondon.com, planninginlondon@mac.com
ISSN 1366-9672 (PRINT) ISSN 2053-4124 (DIGITAL) Issue 110 July-September 2019
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 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. 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 Member bodies Association of Consultant Architects Association of London Borough Planning Officers/Planning Officers’ Society London Councils British Property Federation Design Council CABE City of London Law Society Confederation for British Industry
MHCLG 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
THE LP&DF IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE LONDON SOCIETY
LEADERS
Caution! Council housebuilding in progress The planning system will have to police councils’ own ambitions. Will that work out?
Planning in London has been published and edited by Brian Waters, Lee Mallett and Paul Finch since 1992
A century of council house building was celebrated recently. David Lloyd George set out his vision "To make Britain a fit country for heroes to live in" on 23 November 1918, two weeks after the end of WW1 - although London County Council had built the Boundary Estate 20 years earlier in 1900. The provision of subsidised homes has been one of the main achievements of British political ideology ever since, before virtually disappearing as a local authority activity in the mid-1980s. We all know why. It was the planning system's job, directed by housing departments' assessment of need, to approve the design, location and standards of all those homes, especially after the 1947 Act. Yet London boroughs on average remain around 20 years behind their own house building targets if they are collectively to hit the homes required by Government targets by 2026. But, wait, the cap on borrowing against housing stock is off, thanks to Theresa May's one memorable policy announced last October, likely to be her greatest legacy. And possibly the most appropriate political response to great need we've seen in recent decades. Even if, as is depressingly usual, it is a belated attempt to shut a stable door banging in a hurricane decades after the horse bolted to the knackers. The Mayor of London reckons London's total "affordable housing stock" is around 812,000 homes. He still thinks we need a modest 66,000 homes a year. The population has been increasing at the rate of 120,000 a year. There is a massive backlog. Take what figure you like from the many proffered, but even if we built a million new homes in London, that would barely touch the sides, or dampen prices. And rather like the building of a new motorway, or Crossrail perhaps, such perspicacity will be rewarded with expanding demand. So why bother? Why not keep that public money safe in the Treasury's coffers. Let's not perturb London's planners and socially-minded architects with a tsunami of new council housing, because it will only encourage more people to move here. We need to bother for so many reasons. First is that increasing inequality and perceived or real diminishing opportunity stifled by housing unavailability, is a political fire in the hold. Then there are the enormous sums wasted annually by councils fulfilling statutory obligations to London's homeless lining the pockets of canny rentier investors. There is also an enormous potential for new homes to be found from London's real Great Estates. That is the multi-billion-pound residential property portfolios of London's Councils. This is one of the world's largest, most neglected, investment assets, targeted at social good, now opening up, thanks to Theresa's munificence. But some think councils lack the skills and talent to deliver quality homes economically. The planning system, also operated by councils, will have to police its own ambitions. Will that work out? It has worked well in some places (SEE our next feature), and it most definitely has not worked in others, which still need fixing. This needs some thought, not least because of the umbilical link between who you might vote for, and who provides your subsidised home. n >>>
www.planninginlondon.com
Issue 110 July-September 2019
5
LEADERS
Grading Metropolitan Open Land Not all MOL sites are equal, and the sooner that is recognized, the better.
Planning in London recently agued in these columns that Metropolitan Open Land, London’s version of Green Belt, needs a review. Our suggestion was that a grading system be introduced, rather like that for listed buildings, where Grade I would more or less be untouchable, Grade II generally difficult to build on, but Grade III would allow for construction provided the outcome would be in the general public interest. That view is reinforced following a successful appeal against refusal of planning in respect of an MOL site next to Lower Sydenham railway station in the London Borough of Bromley. The in accessible site was formerly used as a football pitch associated with the former Dylon factory which closed in the 1970s. Two residential developments were granted permission on appeal next to the MOL site; an earlier appeal failed in respect of what is known as the Dylon 2 site. A revised development, taking into account the inspector’s comments, was submitted to Bromley but refused permission. The appeal focused on whether the ‘very special circumstances’ required to allow development on an MOL site had been met. Much of the argument centred on the borough’s failure to ensure adequate five-year land supply for an appropriate housing programme. However, another issued was the quality of the design, by Ian Ritchie Architects. The council’s QC tried to argue that the quality of design was indivisible from the planning context – and that since we were dealing with MOL, the design could not have taken that into account. This was a silly argument since it implied that creative architectural design could not, or should not, happen in such a context. The inspector was in fact full of praise for the architect’s work. Happily, the appeal was granted a mere two weeks after the 10-day inquiry closed – and would probably have been granted even earlier but for a fruitless attempt on the council’s part to seek costs from the appellant. This was the inspectorate at its best: hearing the evidence, coming to a clear conclusion and relaying the result at the earliest opportunity. (In this, it contrasts with the year-long wait – still waiting – for the result of the ‘Chiswick Curve’ appeal in respect of a residential tower at the start of the elevated M4 motorway.) What the Mayor of London and other policy-makers should consider is that while excellent design may not by itself represent the ‘very special circumstances’ which could justify MOL development, without that quality, other factors would probably not be enough on their own. But the more general message is that not all MOL sites are equal, and the sooner that is recognized, the better. n
Building Beautiful Commission seeks views As we go to press, the bizarrely named ‘Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission’ is issuing its interim report into how we could create beautiful mixed-use places, which would attract community support because of their ‘beauty’ and would therefore result in faster planning and, who knows, a significant contribution to addressing our housing shortage. Comments are invited, which PiL readers will no doubt react to, and which will result in coverage in our next issue. The first question, of course, is how do you assess beauty? Opinion poll? Royal Academicians? Planning committees? This one will run and run. n 6
Planning in London
PICTURE FEATURE: VALUING GOOD DESIGN | ALISON COUTINHO
Brick by Brick: valuing good design Having a meaningful design aspiration is often missed during the drive to address the housing crisis says Alison Coutinho
Alison Coutinho is a senior construction manager at Brick by Brick
Brick by Brick is building homes across the London Borough of Croydon and, irrespective of their location, the developments have a common goal: to exemplify good design. The delivery of high-quality design falls off the agenda for many developers in the face of rising construction costs and uncertainty in the sales market, but Brick by Brick has three indispensable assets that ensure good design remains the absolute baseline. Barrie Close Mews in Coulsdon by Pitman Tozer
Station Road in South Norwood by Common Ground Architecture
The development brief Cost, value and design are given equal weighting in our brief, which means that our small panel of architecture’s top talent is tasked with making high-quality design intrinsic to our developments. We nurture the client-architect relationship by having a collaborative approach, and we actively involve them in appraising the financial viability of our developments. The approach cuts out linear and iterative design amendments and, instead, enables an holistic design process where all parties are working towards the same goals. To this end, we have actively sought forwardthinking architects who share our ambition and who have a common passion for realising the development potential of challenging, high-risk sites that Local Authorities have previously shied away from. Our bespoke design manual - formulated by our in-house architecture practice, Common Ground Architecture - forms a significant part of the development brief. It outlines key design guidance, information about our painstaking qualitymonitoring process and our interior finishes specification, which is the same for market-sale and shared ownership homes. This locks in buying >>>
www.planninginlondon.com
Issue 110 July-September 2019
7
PICTURE FEATURE: VALUING GOOD DESIGN | ALISON COUTINHO
Kindred House Croydon by Pitman Tozer
>>> gains for Brick by Brick, ensures commonality in our product and efficiency in the design programme.
development. This allows a medium-sized business like Brick by Brick to develop its expertise over a much shorter period.
The designers The architects we work with are extremely versatile, and are as adept at designing small sites with a handful of homes as they are working on larger schemes in central locations. This means that we don’t have to spread ourselves too thinly by working with a large number of practices just because we have a wide range of sites. Versatility cannot be underestimated when it comes to our sites, the majority of which are awkward in shape, unpredictable in condition and complicated in land terms. As such, we encourage our design teams to tackle them from a position of innovation, and to thrive on the challenges the sites present. An added benefit of working with a small number of architects over a large number of sites (we have more than a hundred live developments!), is that it gives us an opportunity to collectively reflect, learn and adapt from development to
The delivery team The final, but by no means least important, way that we strive to meet our goal of good design is through the Brick by Brick team. Our team of 35 is based in a converted Victorian shop in the centre of Croydon, which was renovated by Common Ground Architecture in early 2019. Common Ground Architecture’s role in the company is unique - as well as being an architecture practice in their own right (providing an alternative source of income), they fulfil a client-monitoring function for our homes under construction. This ensures that the design concept of a scheme is upheld through delivery, which is critical to maintaining the standard of the product developed between Brick by Brick and our architects in early stage design. We also employ architects to work in our delivery teams. Having been on the side of a consultant, their insight is invaluable as they are able to
8
Planning in London
navigate common risks, for example coordination issues and identification of scope gaps, whilst also driving the agenda for good design alongside the other aspects of development management. This happens to be where I fit in at Brick at Brick. Having practised architecture for more than ten years, I moved client-side so I could use my experience to drive best value. Alongside my fellow architects at Brick by Brick, we have colleagues from a variety of construction-related backgrounds. This variety does not just keeps the agenda of good design alive, it enriches and challenges it from all perspectives. The definition of good design may differ from person to person, however having a meaningful design aspiration is so often missed during the drive to address the housing crisis. Our quest for good design is ultimately for the people we are delivering homes for and the communities that they will be joining. Our first homes are due for completion later this year and we are so excited to see how formerly disused sites across Croydon will be enlivened by the developments we deliver. n
The London Planning and Development Forum at its last meeting received a presentation from Professor Janice Morphet of UCL about their just published research into direct building by local authorities. Brick by Brick is an exemplar. See page 36 et seq See also our feature A Distinctively Local approach to designing homes fit for the future by Simon Baylioss of HTA et al. Alison Coutinho is a Senior Construction Manager at Brick by Brick. She leads on schemes from planning to completion, including the +400-unit Fairfield Homes development in Croydon. She has extensive experience in design having practised architecture for more than ten years and held a part-time lecturer’s post at Leicester School of Architecture. Prior to joining Brick by Brick, Alison held a senior position at Berkeley Group plc gaining experience in masterplan delivery.Alison also sits on the RIBA Education Validation Panel.
Plan of Croydon showing Brick by Brick sites
Typical living room
www.planninginlondon.com
Issue 108 January-March 2019
9
OPINION: URBANISATION | NICK EASEN
Patchy urbanisation reveals urgent demographic challenge Headline global statistics highlighting growing urban populations mask slowing rates of growth in some developed countries and many cities remain woefully underprepared for the unprecedented demographic shifts underway, writes Nick Easen Our cities matter, they’re huge engines of economic power. If Tokyo were a nation it would rank as the 15th largest economy in the world. London’s on a par with the Netherlands, while New York is muscling in on Spain and Canada in terms of size. Cities, having powered the global economy for decades, are now facing a fresh challenge: demographics. Slowing global population growth, falling fertility rates and ageing, as well as diminishing migration from the countryside, mean cities around the globe will struggle to post the kind of growth figures we’ve seen in the last half century. It’s a stark reality. “We’ve all grown up with the idea that cities will grow. Yet a third of them could have fewer people in the future,” explains Jaana Remes, partner at the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI). “Looking forwards, there will be intense competition among cities to attract people.” The most worrying figure is the drop in young adults, the workhorses of any urban economy. By 2025, more than 60 per cent of large cities in developed countries and 47 per cent in developing ones will have fewer people than today, according to the MGI. “There maybe one new London created every week, but this isn’t evenly distributed. Urban growth isn’t everywhere, it’s patchy. Most cities in developed countries are growing slowly or shrinking,” says Professor Carlo Ratti, director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Senseable City Lab. “We’re also seeing different challenges in different parts of the world. Building new urban fabric in emerging economies is fine, but we might have too much of it in developed ones.” By 2030, we’re likely to have forty-three megacities with more than ten million inhabitants and most will be in emerging economies, according to the United Nations. By this time, India’s Delhi will be the world’s most populous city. Fast forward to 2050, globally, 68 per cent of us will live in urban areas, up from just over half today. Yet the picture is nuanced. “On this basis we mustn’t overdo the message on urban decline. There will be an evolution in where growth happens. Popular cities such as London or
10
Planning in London
New York, for instance, still have the potential to suck up labour, capital, talent and investment,” says Alexander Jan, chief economist at Arup. “In the future, urban centres that have great infrastructure will be more able to cope with change. Certainly, cities will need to be able to take control of their own destiny, if they’re to thrive.” The fact is, like people, cities are extremely complex organisms; dozens of complicated processes are going on simultaneously. Understanding the interplay between housing, workforce, transport networks and technology is an issue. “Whether you want to understand Beijing or Rio, drill down and you find global processes at work,” says Terry Clark, professor of sociology at the University of Chicago. Cities will need to be resilient, agile, innovative and attractive if they’re to thrive in the 21st century. But no two cities are the same. “Many urban centres are woefully underprepared for the demographic shifts underway. Cities that fail to adapt risk losing residents, jobs and culture hotspots, all of which make cities amazing places to live,” says Steven Charlton, managing director of Perkins+Will, an architecture and design firm The old and the very young are cohorts that some cities are now focused on. “American cities are becoming more unfriendly to families and are increasingly dominated by wealthy, childless residents,” says Professor Clark. Think San Francisco and Manhattan. Also take London, older people are the fastestgrowing demographic, with the number of over-60s projected to reach two million and 20 per cent of the population by 2035. “Models like inter-generational living are starting to show on the radar now,” says Amanda Robinson, head of knowledge at Future of London. “Talented older workers are leaving, while young people may leave unaffordable cities, taking skills with them. Brain drain is already happening as people in their 20s and 30s relocate to other parts of the country with affordable living costs or more familyfriendly lifestyles.” The environment is also increasingly on the agenda, yet cities could provide answers since dense,
Nick Easen is a specialist writer
urban living is more resource efficient. “If we’re serious about fighting climate change, a lot more people are going to have to live in urban centres with walkable, bikeable neighbourhoods, good public transport, as well as live in apartments, instead of McMansions,” says Professor Richard Florida, cofounder of CityLab at the University of Toronto. “A lot of cities remain addicted to cars, sprawl and conservative politics.” Since there’s no silver bullet for tackling these issues, maybe the best thing for central governments to do is give more control to city authorities so they can decide their own fate. Fiscal devolution, where local governments have more autonomy over taxes and what they’re spent on, is one answer. Our cities will certainly need careful curation if they’re to thrive, whether it’s providing affordable housing for the young or attracting an older, richer cohort with age-friendly facilities and work. “Every city will need to do more with less and be mindful of their demographic prospects. One city’s loss could certainly be another’s gain,” says MGI’s Dr Remes. “It’s all about trying to create a cool centre whether it’s Austin, Texas or Singapore.” We also know that technology is likely to disrupt the demographic profile of our future cities; we just don’t know how yet. “We need to make sure that any decline in productivity due to age or shift in demographics is compensated by a larger increase brought about by technology, but it’s not an easy task,” says Professor Ratti at MIT. In fact, none of it’s easy. Otherwise we would have all moved there by now, to that ideal city. n
First published in Raconteur’s special report in The Times, see: https://www.raconteur.net/future-cities-2019
8 01
WAYS URBAN DEMOGRAPHICS ARE CHANGING
TWO THIRDS OF THE WORLD WILL LIVE IN URBAN AREAS BY 2050 Total global population
More than two thirds of the global population will live in urban areas by 2050, as the number of people in rural areas falls. The impact this will have on city demographics will be profound, but will vary wildly depending on where you live in the world, as data from the United Nations shows...
02
URBAN POPULATION GROWTH WILL BE DRIVEN BY JUST THREE COUNTRIES
Urban share of total
30% 55%
2018
1950
03
+255m
68%
China
2050
RURAL POPULATIONS WILL SOON PEAK
1950
1970
1990
2015
2030
+416m
2050
India
7bn
+189m Nigeria
5bn of the world’s urban population growth between 2018 and 2050 will come from India, China and Nigeria
3bn Rural
1bn
Urban
04
RISE OF THE MEGACITIES
Number of megacities in the world, which are home to 10 million inhabitants or more
05
10
AFRICA AND ASIA WILL DRIVE URBAN POPULATION GROWTH Oceania
1950
Share of urban dwellers by region 100%
North America
90%
Latin America & Caribbean
80%
Europe
70%
33 43
06
2018
2050
DE-URBANISATION IS A FORGOTTEN PROBLEM
While much of the future cities narrative is focused on rapid rates of urbanisation in developing nations, less is spoken about de-urbanisation or urban de-population. Falling fertility rates, economic contraction and natural disasters all are contributing factors in shrinking urban populations.
60% 50%
Asia
40%
of large cities in developed regions are predicted to experience falls in their population between 2015 and 2025, according to McKinsey
30% 20% 10%
Africa 0%
1950
1970
1990
2015
2030
2050
37m
Average annual rate of change in urban population
08
6%
2015
07
URBANISATION RATES VARY IN DEVELOPING AND DEVELOPED COUNTRIES
Tokyo, the world’s largest city with 37 million inhabitants, is expected to see its population start to decline from 2020
AVERAGE AGES ACROSS CITIES WILL BEGIN TO RISE
Age distribution for large cities in: Japan
2025
5%
Low Income
United States
4%
2015 3%
2025
Middle Income 2%
Western Europe
2015
1%
2025
High Income
0%
1950
1970
1990
2015
2030
2050
0-14
15-29
30-60
60+
All stats are from the United Nations unless otherwise stated
www.planninginlondon.com
Issue 110 July-September 2019
11
OPINION: HISTORIC ENGLAND | JONATHAN THOMPSON
Planning and heritage - a fixable problem Jonathan Thompson on how planning cuts have hit heritage – and what steps can and should be taken to fix it Often viewed as an easier target for cuts than more obvious frontline services, planning has been at the forefront of councils’ sometimes-brutal efforts to stay solvent. Research by the Centre for London shows the capital’s planning departments’ budgets falling by 59 per cent since 2010, mirrored by a 55 per cent fall across England. Unsurprisingly, this has far-reaching impacts on planning and heritage. As Senior Heritage Adviser at the Country Land and Business Association (CLA), I see these impacts on our 30,000 members, and across the 150,000 heritage-relevant applications in England: the difficulty of getting responses from overwhelmed officers; unresolved uncertainty over whether (and which) consents are needed, and what information is required; delays and escalating costs; and widespread failure in the application of the NPPF. In Historic England’s 2015 residential owner survey, over a third found the listed building consent (LBC) system “poor” or “very poor”. In its 2018 business occupier survey, 52 per cent found LBC “excessively burdensome”. Finally, in research by the GLA in 2016, almost all London boroughs said they required more delivery skills in their planning departments. Some seem to think that Government now understands the problem, and that vital funds will arrive. That - given the demands to spend elsewhere, and the worsening demographic pressure on public spending - seems unlikely. Even if it happened, how long would it last? How much would really go to planning? The previous evidence is bleak: the 2018 20 per cent planning fee increase was supposedly “ringfenced for planning”, but most of it has (as before) been diverted into other areas. Even if extra money did somehow improve the current system to run marginally better for a couple of years, in what way is that enough? What is needed is an efficient planning process that will work within the resources that are genuinely available, a system whose funding will therefore be defensible in cash-challenged local government, not for two years but for two decades. That requires reform. The Barber report, which will underpin the Spending Review and future government spending, recently re-endorsed by HM Treasury, is not about
12
Planning in London
slugs of cash for traditional systems. Funding will depend on defined publicly-valuable outcomes being achieved, with strong emphasis on “innovation”, “ambition”, “technology” and “ideas”. Rather than just asking for resource, the heritage sector has been developing ideas. Back in 2014 the Historic Environment Forum (HEF), the key-stakeholder group for heritage, set up a cross-sector working group with Government support, to analyse the problem and develop solutions. From the start, HEF decided that these solutions must (a) be effective, (b) increase – not reduce – heritage protection on the ground, and (c) be implementable by the heritage sector itself, without significant work, money or primary legislation from government.
In Historic England’s 2015 residential owner survey, over a third found the listed building consent (LBC) system “poor” or “very poor”. In its 2018 business occupier survey, 52 per cent found LBC “excessively burdensome”. Finally, in research by the GLA in 2016, almost all London boroughs said they required more delivery skills in their planning departments. The results are therefore not just “asks” aimed at government. They are effective proposals, consulted on twice, which can be finalised and implemented. They include embedding proper heritage analysis by applicants into the design and application process; listed building consent orders, which would grant
Jonathan Thompson is Senior Heritage Adviser at the Country Land and Business Association
consent for carefully-defined categories of works to listed buildings; and encouraging the use of expertise, including by incentivising applicants to use accredited independent experts. Effectively implemented, these co-ordinated reforms could be transformational, increasing the demand for heritage skills, focusing resource where it is most needed, and making the system simpler and more efficient, predictable and defensible. The proposals as above do not require additional work from government, but making them happen does need the support of Historic England. Unfortunately, that has seemed unclear to date – but then Historic England is not the main victim of the current problems. The casualties are local authority staff, owners and applicants, heritage assets, and the wider public. Historic England does designation, research, public engagement, placemaking, training, and publishing advice, generally very well, but as we have recently pointed out, reform – implementing actual change – appears to be outside its comfort zone. Of Historic England’s three primary statutory purposes, two are about the heritage protection system. A system that works is its most fundamental duty as the government’s adviser on heritage. It must therefore stop seeing the problems as peripheral, fixable just with an advice note and training. Historic England needs to put our heritage first, and to work with HEF to act on these proposals – the sooner the better. n
OPINION: PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS | CARL DYER
More planning flexibility should help London’s high streets We live in changing times. For once, some of the changes to our planning system are actually helpful says Carl Dyer The government has recognised that the planning system is often slow and cumbersome. It also lacks the appetite for root and branch reform. (Rumour has it that they have other things on their mind right now.) So, they have looked increasingly to use additions to permitted development rights to allow changes of use without the need for full planning applications. The most obvious of these has been the right to convert B1 office buildings to C3 residential development. This has been successful in increasing supply of residential accommodation: by November 2018 13,526 new residential units were delivered through new permitted development rights. Permitted development rights relating to High Street uses have also been created, and widened. We already had a flexible use class to allow a temporary 2-year change of use to any one of a variety of High Street compatible uses. This is now being increased to 3 years, and the possible uses are being widened. The latest changes which came into force on 25 May, allow A1 shops, A2 financial professional services, A5 hot food takeaways, betting shops, payday loan shops, and launderettes to change to B1 office use; and also allow A5 hot food takeaways to change to C3 residential use subject prior approval. Additionally, the flexible temporary now 3-year use class is been widened to include a number of leisure activities. Meanwhile, the government is still looking (apparently favourably, despite a very mixed set of responses to its consultation document) at the possibility of allowing buildings to be extended upwards to deliver more residential accommodation.
13
www.planninginlondon.com
So, what is this going to mean for High Streets already faced with the rise of Internet shopping, rising minimum wages, the need to compete with an everwider range of other employers as near full employment increases retail workers career options and bargaining power, congestion charging and continuing uncertainty? Well, hopefully it should have a thoroughly beneficial effect by allowing for a greater flexibility of uses for what is almost certainly now a structural oversupply of traditional High Street Retail and related units. That will depend of course on those who work in and run the planning system embracing the flexibility being created and not seeking to resist it. Our High Streets have been constantly evolving for literally centuries. We have moved from medieval markets, to larger and more permanent shops, becoming ever larger post industrialisation, through department stores to out of centre food stores and retail parks, and now increasingly to ever-more specialist diversification and non-retail uses and internet shopping. This is exciting and to be welcomed. The tragedy of our planning system in the 20th century has been that all too often it has been designed to stifle that very innovation which is the life blood of the high street and to delay or frustrate progress. The London School of Economics demonstrated convincingly that retail price inflation could have been lower if superstores had been allowed to compete with each other properly instead of new developments being overly regulated by the planning system. Now, as all retailers are facing increasing online competition, we see once more calls to preserve the traditional High Street. That is surely the wrong response. If London's high streets are to survive and
Carl Dyer is National Head of Planning at Irwin Mitchell
thrive for the rest of the 21st century, the owners and occupiers of those high streets need to be allowed flexibility to diversify their offer and the use of their properties to provide what today's and tomorrow's Londoners want and need, not just the High Street shops that were appropriate in the 1950s. The widening of permitted development rights is exactly what is needed to address the need for flexibility. The correct response for planners faced with pressures on the High Street is surely to allow the huge diversity of people we have in London to make their own choices as to what businesses they think will succeed and allow those people and businesses to bring as much choice and diversity to the High Street as possible. If a takeaway is not viable, then let's let it become a home. The unit may be "lost" from the High Street, but the residents will bring additional security to the units around them. If a restaurant thinks it can improve its profit margin (and probably local employment) by delivering it's high quality meals to residents who don't always have time to eat out, then surely they should be allowed to do so - not threatened with a change of use enforcement notice, as some authorities have been proposing. If someone thinks that they can make money out of providing a soft play area with a cafe or bar in a former retail unit, then let them do so. They will bring the parents of young children back to the High Street. When the children of gone to bed, they may bring adults wanting to pretend they are children. As people work in the knowledge economy in ever more ways with ever more flexible ways and hours of working, let some of them take over redundant shops as offices and bring fresh businesses to the High Street. Let's welcome the changes, and all start thinking of the next ones that we can ask to be introduced. n
Issue 110 July-September 2019
13
OPINION | PETER REES TALKS TO ELIZABETH HOPKIRK
“In 80, 90, 100 years’ time I fear we’ll have the Thames lined with derelict towers.” Peter Rees, City Planning Officer for 29 years, holds forth when interviewed by Elizabeth Hopkirk for a Building podcast For 30 years it was Peter Rees’ job to shape a vision for the City of London. As chief planning officer during one of its most significant periods of growth, he’s arguably more responsible for the skyline in the Square Mile than any other individual. Whatever you think of that increasingly busy skyline aesthetically, no one can deny that Rees’ policy has been a commercial success for the City. With its tallest building to date topping out this month, developers are still queuing up to build offices there. Rees has since moved on to academia, taking up a post as Professor of Places at UCL’s Bartlett School of Planning in 2014, where he is applying his strategic vision to the rest of London. And what he conjures up in his crystal ball is rather bleak. In a wide-ranging interview with Building, conducted on the balcony of a David Chipperfield office building in King’s Cross with views across London and accompanied by construction noise from Google’s rising headquarters, Rees talks about the commendable work being done in the capital, digital technology, planning use classes – and why parliament should move to Ashby-de-la-Zouch. But he also paints a sobering vision of the future facing UK cities, whose skylines he predicts will be marred by forests of derelict residential towers within a few decades. ‘Safety deposit boxes in the sky’ Relishing his new life away from a desk, Rees teaches outside as much as he can. One of the first things he does with his urban design and city planning masters students at UCL is to take them on a Thames river cruise where he provides a commentary on what they can learn from this transect through the capital. On this trip, he finds one thing unpleasantly unavoidable: the number of apartment blocks springing up all the way from Woolwich to Battersea. Most of the flats are being sold to investors on 125-year leases – a practice Rees ascribes to developers’ interest in maximising
14
Planning in London
short-term profits. It is the way these homes have been translated into glass “safety deposit boxes in the sky” that he warns will cause us – or more likely our descendants – huge problems in years to come. Increasingly, the freeholds of these buildings are being sold on. In 2016, for instance, Berkeley disposed of its historical ground-rent portfolios, netting £51m and releasing itself from ongoing maintenance obligations. The purchasers of both the freeholds and the leaseholds are unprepared for what’s coming in terms of maintenance costs, Rees warns – although since Grenfell and Dame Judith Hackitt’s recommendations on building regs and fire safety, more of them are probably beginning to ask questions. Only this month the government was forced to cough up £200m to fund the removal of unsafe cladding from private residential towers because the owners were dragging their heels and occupants were turning to lawyers in panic, unable to pay. Rees says: “The lifespan of the component parts of the building are not considered and the freehold ‘asset’ is sold to an owner interested only in the capital ‘trophy’ and a modest income from ground rent.” He says electrical and mechanical systems are likely to need replacement after 25 years, as are the gaskets in curtain wall glazing. Thermally sealed allglass elevations will probably have a lifespan of up to 60 years. This is all factored into the cyclical renewal programmes of office towers, which are typically let on maximum 25-year leases. But when major renovation work becomes due on the new breed of private residential towers, there is no mechanism for “reassembling” the development in order to facilitate this renewal work, short of compulsory purchase, he says.
‘A Thames lined with derelict towers’ “The sinking funds [for repair and maintenance] set within apartment service charges do not cover these heavy refurbishment items and pur-
Eleanor Jolliffe is an architect and freelance architecture writer
chasers rarely have an insight into the liability which such works will impose,” explains Rees. “If future refurbishment cycles cannot be funded by the apartment owners, their investments will become unsellable long before the expiry of their 125-year lease. In 80, 90, 100 years’ time I fear we’ll have the Thames lined with derelict towers.” He’s not alone in his dystopian forecast. Louie Burns, managing director of the Leasehold Group, which acts for leaseholders, says it will become a “huge issue” across the country. “This will be the next big scandal in leasehold as there is no homogenised method of redevelopment,” he predicts. “It is in the interest of freeholders, on aged buildings, to take the money paid by leaseholders for service charges but to carry out no work to maintain the building.” Freeholders may even buy and board up flats allowing them to fall into disrepair, he says, adding: “Eventually the building will be in such a mess that they can move to compulsorily purchase the flats.” It’s an analysis strongly contested by the developers. Steve Turner from the Home Builders Federation argues that modern blocks are built in such a way that major repairs can be carried out floor by floor without having to decant all the residents. And management companies that buy up the freeholds will ensure residents’ fees cover these costs so that they don’t become liable themselves, he says. “The vast majority of properties are run by professional companies that take a long-term view of buildings,” he insists. “It’s in their interests to make sure the building runs effectively and is maintained for the length of its life.” Construction law specialist Sheena Sood, a part-
ner at Beale & Company Solicitors, says Rees has a point but that it would all come down to the strength of individual leases.“I do think some of what’s going on in terms of building these new flats and then getting them leased is quite a short-term approach by developers,” she concedes. But she places some hope in the architecture, saying: “Some of these towers are quite integral to the skyline now so I don’t agree they will be left to go to waste. I think they will always have investors interested in making them part of their portfolio.”
‘It’s bad land use’ Rees, however, won’t be moved from his gloomy vision of “derelict uninhabitable hulks”. He also identifies a more immediate problem with the residential investment boom. “At a time when London is short of land, it seems crazy to have wasted that much of central London land on a product which will not only be under-used but for which there will be no maintenance mechanism. It’s bad land use,” he says. He doesn’t blame the developers: they are like “children at a birthday party, eating until they are sick”. When private residential is eight times more profitable than offices, it’s a no-brainer. He reserves his precisely articulated ire for politicians of all stripes who have deliberately stigmatised renting and presided over a free-for-all. The solution in his eyes must therefore be political, but he derives some hope from the current build-to-rent explosion, so long as it is professionally managed. “There’s no doubt in my mind that the development sector is perfectly capable of and willing to provide the private rented accommodation that’s so urgently needed in our urban areas,” he says. “There’s noreason at all – provided they have long-
www.planninginlondon.com
term interests in an income and a return on their assets rather than looking to make a quick buck – why they can’t be the right people to manage parts of our cities.” Private developers might even do a better job
I have no hope for anything that involves party politicians,” he says. “I believe that we’re suffering from political gangrene in this country and the only thing that gives me any hope is the collapse of the major parties.” than local authorities, he adds, pointing to London’s successful development from the 17th century onwards by private landowners – as well as cities like Vienna and Berlin where it’s still normal to rent long-term in the centre. There are many more crimes that this son of the Welsh valleys lays at the feet of the “amateur political classes” who lord it over professionals from “their Islington dinner parties”. The belief that planning gets in the way of development has allowed the system to be undermined to the point where London has no land use control, he says. The consequences include a host of offices converted into barely inhabitable flats.
‘Political gangrene’ He also accuses politicians of destroying building control and thereby laying the ground for
tragedies like Grenfell. “Once you unbolt a system and allow the private sector to come up with alternatives, you end up with the worst of all worlds: parallel systems of certifying safety,” he says. “Then you are in a very dangerous position.” Rees wants a reinvigorated planning system, focusing on land use, and proposes a huge expansion of use classes, which he describes as “our only planning tool of any strength”. This would allow local authorities to distinguish between rental and sale homes, investment properties, starter homes, student and retirement housing – subtleties that are currently all bracketed together. Then councils could grant or refuse planning permission based on an assessment of the needs of the community. For a moment he is dangerously close to optimism – but then the conversation turns to consumption and Westminster’s woeful response to the threat posed by climate change, and his mood sours again. “I have no hope for anything that involves party politicians,” he says. “I believe that we’re suffering from political gangrene in this country and the only thing that gives me any hope is the collapse of the major parties.” He’s a man with strong opinions. But the energy that powers his arguments also drives a highly social personality that belies the grumpy-old-man image. As we leave the building to take his picture in Argent’s Pancras Square (one of the best new spaces in London, he thinks) he runs into Bob Allies and Graham Morrison, founders of the eponymous architecture practice, and we stop for a chat. It is a serendipitous demonstration of his case that a good place is one where people want to linger and gossip. n With kind consent of Building, please go to: www.building.co.uk/podcasts
Issue 110 July-September 2019
15
OPINION: PUBLIC SPACES | CONSTANTINA AVRAAMIDES
Putting the ‘POP’ into privately owned public spaces Good placemaking makes people identify with spaces; making them their own place, where they can have a say and organically impact its growth as a part of a community says Constantina Avraamides Always looking forward to the RIBA awards I was fascinated with last month’s winners. For me the stand-out scheme was Coal Drops Yard; the latest addition to the Kings Cross regeneration project, and already established as the new place to be. The history-rich space is designed to be open to the public, and much advertised throughout London. Large graphic signs are scattered along the path from the Kings Cross tube station boldly emphasising to the unaware passers-by “you have arrived”. The project is nevertheless, another example of a pseudo-public place, another public ‘island’ with its own set of rules. Being a regular visitor for a while now, I was enthusiastic at first with all the independent shops and restaurants housed in Coal Drops Yard. Following a recent Friday night dinner however, I was disappointed by the “curfew” of 11pm; a kind reminder that we were encroaching on a private place. Is this the future for open space in our cities and what are the key ingredients to making these successful? Privately Owned Public Spaces (POPs) began to London Seafood Festival at Battersea Power Station ©JohnnyStephensPhotography
16
Planning in London
increase through the 2000s around the UK and especially in the capital with More London estate near Tower Bridge and Merchant Square in Paddington. POPs have been greatly debated over the last years for being publicly accessible spaces, Constantina Avraamides is yet with specified constraints on their use, due to a part II architectural the fact that they are delivered and maintained by assistant at JTP architects private bodies. Despite the democratic discussions they raise with regards to freedom of use, POPs Granary Square; consistently drawing in people. I have proven to be successful in providing safe public would debate that creating a sought after place is spaces throughout the city, and in some cases stim- not defined by whether it is public or private, but ulating street based retail. However, they usually about the ground level uses and form of each space lack the kind of intense energy that comes with the that defines successful placemaking. The benefits of unpredicted use and inhabitation by people of pub- space management and curation are brought lic spaces. together with a feeling of authenticity. The Kings Cross regeneration appears to be difI’m happy to have witnessed similar success in ferent to other projects in the capital, in terms of its one of JTP’s on-going projects; the Battersea Power success and acceptance with people. I would argue Station development. Since 2006, we’ve instigated that it all comes down to a successful curated place- and managed a broad strategic placemaking making by the King’s Cross Central Limited approach, with the vision captured in our Battersea Partnership, who own and manage the develop- ‘Placebook’. The Placebook sets out eight manifestos ment. A series of events are strategically orchestrat- based on why people will want to live and visit ed, in and around the spaces of Coal Drops Yard and Battersea, and 60 points for their delivery ensuring the original vision is consistent for the lifetime of the project’s delivery and its future use. The unique mix of restaurants and shops relates back to the first manifesto of the Placebook; “No default” has now become Never Ordinary. This aspiration to provide a different offer reveals itself not only in the types of shops occupying the retail front but also how locals can use them, what products to stock and sell and even what types of events they should have. The Battersea Power Station development has a liveliness, or perhaps a freedom that demonstrates a happy union between the vision for the place and its inhabitation by residents and locals alike Good placemaking makes people identify with spaces; making them their own place, where they can have a say and organically impact its growth as a part of a community. Ultimately, I think this is what we want from our public spaces; a feeling of personal and collective engagement with the world around us. n
OPINION: INVESTMENT IN LONDON | GAVIN KIERAN
Broken records, Gavin Kieran; says that, under the circumstances, the industry is still positive about market demand in the capital for all sectors except retail. It’s confident that foreign investment will continue to flow in. It’s July 2019, and we’re still talking about Brexit. To be sure, Brexit is a future-changing transition and deserves all of the resources and discourse it needs to get it right. It’s just that here we are, after 29 March, after 12 April, still talking about Brexit and none the wiser about the eventual outcome. M3 Consulting conducted our bi-annual London Development Barometer survey this spring just after the 12 April deadline for Brexit. After all, whether the UK has left the European Union with or without a deal, we wanted to know what the industry had to say on a momentous milestone in modern British history that that did not happen. Much like the Brexit discussions themselves, what we heard was a bit like a broken record: Improve town planning process and provide funding for local authorities, infrastructure, transport and housing delivery. Let’s say this again: The industry has prioritised improving the town planning process and government funding. Above mitigating the Brexit transition. In the immediate aftermath of failed Brexit negotiations. In fact these have been the top two priorities since the LDB launched in autumn 2017. At that time, the industry had a glimpse of the somewhat unexpected resilience shown by the London property market and a surge of inward overseas investment following the post-referendum devaluation of the pound sterling. It had a few months to recover from the change in the geopolitical landscape as well as an unexpected general election in June at home. At the time, nearly 8 in 10 were concerned about the impact of Brexit and construction skills and capacity. Those concerns have eased somewhat, but the dissatisfaction with the performance of central and local government in terms of enabling development activity has stubbornly remained well over 80 per cent. In fact, a high of 17 per cent out of the 83 per cent of the respondents who believe the governments are not doing enough to enable London development activity, now believe the central and local governments are discouraging development activity. This a good 5 per cent increase on the previ-
www.planninginlondon.com
ous high of 12 per cent this time last year. Sure, the government has loosened up the purse strings and borrowing restrictions for local authorities to help deliver housing and infrastructure. It has Gavin Kieran is a director tinkered with help to buy, stamp duty and permitted at M3 Consulting development. These have helped to a certain degree but, for certain sectors, they have had their detractors. With the Brexit impasse still ongoing however, debate on planning and delivery such as the The London property industry is of course still Raynesford and Letwin reports and NPPF amend- wary of Brexit and its impact, with 59 per cent of the ments have fallen to the wayside. Even the publicly LDB respondents believing the extension will have a sensitive Hackitt review is on the backburner accord- negative impact versus 15 per cent who believe it’ll ing to its author. have a positive impact. It’s not convinced that the Now, of course, the government is busy with extension will actually do any good. A majority of 48 finding a new prime minister. per cent believe it won’t result in a better deal while In London, the Mayor has updated affordable 36 per cent believe it will. housing guidelines, favoured small development But under the circumstances, the industry is still sites and attempted to release public land, but 42 positive about market demand in the capital for all per cent of the LDB respondents felt these and other sectors except retail. It’s confident that foreign policies will have a negative impact compared to 35 investment will continue to flow in. per cent who think they will have a positive impact. It’s keeping an eye on the global economy and While it could be put down to teething problems, politics, and wouldn’t mind further interventions on the lack of clarity on town planning priorities and land supply and stamp duty policies. required affordable housing provision have frustrated It knows that construction costs and capacity will both developers and local authorities. be an issue. But it can deal with all that. n
Issue 110 July-September 2019
17
OPINION: HOUSING DELIVERY | IAN TASKER
Housing delivery continues to fall short in London Ian Tasker shows that a rise in permissions has not translated into an increase in the overall number of units under construction or completed The demand for housing delivery data and insights continues to grow a pace. This is in response to the unparalleled commitment from central, regional and local governments to rapidly and consistently increase housing levels. This has been accompanied by unprecedented levels of funding from government into the sector as well as recent policy changes, such as the removal of the Housing Revenue Account borrowing cap, all aimed at boosting housing supply. Our third annual London housing pipeline analysis set to identify what, if any, green shoots of progress on housing delivery has been achieved over the last eight years since 2010. The analysis tracks the full housebuilding pipeline from planning applications to completions and covers new build developments of 10 units or more (excluding refurbishments and “behind the façade” developments). The Greater London Authority estimates that other schemes (those fewer than 10 units and involving refurbishments and change of use) contributed an additional 14,000 completions in London in 2017. Overall, we have seen strong and steady growth in the number of planning applications being made from 2010 to 2018, increasing by 79 per cent. They reached a peak in 2017, with 79,493 applications recorded. In 2018, there was a significant decrease, with the number of applications dropping to 65,673. The number of planning permissions granted has increased by 155 per cent since 2010. 2018 saw the highest number of permissions in a single year, reaching 62,341. This is a 30 per cent increase compared to 2017 (48,024) which could be due to the significant increase in applications seen that year, which are now starting to work their way through the housing development pipeline. Disappointingly, this rise in permissions has not translated into an increase in the overall number of units in construction or completed. Our analysis calculates the “attrition rate” by identifying units that have been granted permission but are not under construction or completed within three years of the permission being granted. In 2010 there was an attrition rate of 27 per cent, this has risen to a critical level of 46 per cent in 2015 - meaning nearly half of all permissions granted in 2015 had not commenced construction and/or been completed three years later
18
Planning in London
(2018). Interestingly, housing schemes of less than 250 units are much more likely to be constructed than any other scheme size. For example, schemes of 150- Ian Tasker is a director, 249 units had an attrition rate of 17 per cent in 2015, Public Services Advisory, as compared to schemes of 250 units which had an Grant Thornton UK LLP attrition rate of 57 per cent in the same period. Our analysis shows that there continues to be a huge disparity in the level of new homes being delivThe removal of the Housing Revenue Account ered across London, with inner London zones contin- borrowing cap marked an important, necessary step uing to outperform their neighbours. Zones 1-3 have last year and we are yet to see the impact this will consistently led the way and accounted for 66 per have on the housebuilding market. We hope it will cent of all new units built in London in 2018. This is in have a positive change over the next few years and stark contrast to the outer zones, with Zone 6 con- start to rebalance the level of affordable housing tributing just 675 new units in 2018, the lowest num- available on the market – a necessity in London in ber recorded since 2011. While zone 5 contributed particular. double the number of units compared to 2017, rising The reasons for this are not easily quantifiable from 1,029 to 2,253, they are still falling seriously but increased uncertainty due to ongoing Brexit short. Boroughs in zones 5 and 6 need to dramatical- negotiations has not helped to build resilience in the ly step up the pace. sector. Increased funding for affordable housing and To improve equitability in housing access, there willingness from local authorities to consider more has been a clear focus on increasing the number of innovative funding mechanisms has however helped affordable housing units being built in London. to improve market confidence in undertaking affordHowever, our data shows that there is still more to able housing schemes – as evidenced by the almost do as the number of applications for new affordable continued increase in the number of applications and homes saw a drop in 2018 - falling from 27,108 to permissions being granted for new affordable homes 24,043. However, this was still more than double the since 2010. number recorded in 2010 (11,127). Last year also saw The message is simple - London is in the midst of the lowest number of affordable housing comple- an extreme housing crisis and we are continuing to tions since 2014, down to just 5,230. A 30 per cent fall seriously short of the level of housebuilding needdrop on the number completed in 2017 and far short ed. More completions need to be achieved, and now, of what the capital needs. if the housing demands in London are to have any The number of affordable homes given planning chance of being met. n permission however saw a much needed increase, with 22,277 recorded in 2018. This is almost three times the number seen in 2010 (8,105) and makes up over a third of all permissions granted in 2018. While these numbers are encouraging, it is still too early to say if these will translate into new Residential planning approvals Great Britain homes.
OPINION: MEETING HOUSING DEMAND | LAWRENCE BOWLES
More housing needs flexible tenure and funding models The draft new London Plan doesn’t allow the flexibility needed for investors and developers to satisfy the unmet demand for housing says Lawrence Bowles Nowhere is the shortfall in housing supply more acute than in London, where delivery would have to double to meet need. Simply building more homes for market sale isn’t enough to solve this problem: fixing the housing supply crisis in London needs more rented homes, presenting a massive opportunity for long-term, professional investors. The UK’s residential operational real estate (student housing, Build to Rent, and retirement living) is currently worth £223 billion. At full maturity, we believe this could grow fourfold to £880 billion. In nurturing these sectors to this level of maturity and liquidity, we will face a host of challenges – many of them from the planning system. Student housing Student accommodation is the most mature of the three sectors. Since private investors first started building student halls in the 1990s, the sector has grown to a value of £51 billion, with £3.1 billion of investment in 2018. Rising student numbers means that demand for student accommodation will rise. London already has over 100,000 people studying full time at its universities. With four of the world’s top 50 universities based in London, London’s appeal as a destination for international students is only set to increase. Meeting this growing demand will become more difficult should the Draft New London Plan come into place as currently written. The Draft would require student housing developments to provide 35 per cent of beds as affordable student housing, while also requiring nominations agreements in place with a higher education institution before granting planning permission. Both these proposals mark a substantial departure from national policy. Introducing them would make student housing development in London considerably more difficult, potentially stifling investment in the sector and damaging London’s attractiveness as a place to study. Build to Rent Purpose-built homes for private rent are not a new phenomenon, but it’s only in the last few years that we’ve seen institutions such as pension funds
www.planninginlondon.com
making large-scale investments into the sector. UK Build to Rent transactions totalled £2.6 billion in 2018. Despite this interest, the sector is still evolving. There are 32,000 complete and operational Build to Rent homes across the UK, 53 per cent of them in London. As delivery accelerates, and as the sector reaches maturity over the next decade or more, we estimate this sector could grow to 1.7 million homes, worth £544 billion. Naturally there are many obstacles still to overcome before we even begin to reach this level of scale. The Further Suggested Changes to the Draft New London Plan present challenges particular to London: proposals include letting boroughs set social rent requirements for Build to Rent schemes, to be operated by a registered provider. Since most Build to Rent investors are not registered providers, this would make it impossible for single rental blocks to remain in single management, undermining one of the fundamental attractions of this sector. Where boroughs require social rent homes within Build to Rent blocks, the likelihood of securing investment is poor at best. These rules would risk making Build to Rent development in London much less attractive. Retirement living There is undoubtedly a huge need for more housing for older people. The UK’s population aged 85
Lawrence Bowles is an analyst in the Savills Research team, focusing on residential investment and healthcare
and over is projected to treble by 2060, and the number of homes designed and built for older people already falls short of need. London performs particularly poorly in this sphere. The Draft New London Plan acknowledges need for over 4,000 new homes for older people each year. Boroughs approved just 818 such homes in 2016/17. Retirement housing provides a host of benefits for residents and government. Designed to allow residents to age in place, those living in purpose-built homes for older people are less likely to suffer falls, are less likely to require hospital care and return home after hospital stays faster. As a result, for each person aged over 65 living in specialist retirement housing, the NHS and local government saves between £928 and £1,543 per year. Unlike in many planning authorities across the rest of the country, the Draft New London Plan requires all retirement housing other than care homes to provide affordable housing contributions. This does not account for the savings that government receives from this specialist housing over and above the benefits provided by housing development. Allowing retirement housing developers to offset some of these savings against Section 106 contributions would help them compete on a level playing field with general residential developments. All together now There’s a massive unmet demand for more housing delivery in London. Investors and developers are keen to increase supply. The planning system can be a vital tool for enabling this, if plans allow for flexibility in tenure and funding models. Unfortunately, the Draft New London Plan does not appear to provide this flexibility in its current form. n find the report at http://bit.do/eXSkh
Issue 110 July-September 2019
19
BRIEFING | HOUSING DESIGN REVIEW
BRIEFING
Bartlett school of planning is to undertake a national review of housing design quality
BRENT
EALING
KING STO THAMN UPON ES
CA MD EN W ES TM IN ST ER
WANDSWORTH
CITY OF LONDON
BETH LAM
W LO S UN RICHMOND UPON THAMES HO
HA CK NE Y
REDBRIDGE
BARKING & NEW HAM DAGENHAM
TOW R HAMLE ETS
RK SOUTHWA
HILLIN GDON
HARINGEY
WALTHAM FOREST
BARNET
HARROW
HA VE RIN G
ENFIELD
N GTO ISLIN
Planning in London
Green Building Council as a collection of market leadership," said Chris Trott, partner at Foster + Partners and head of sustainability for the practice, reports Dezeen. Signatories to the Net Zero Carbon Buildings Commitment have promised to make all new buildings net zero carbon for 2030, and do the same for their existing buildings by 2050. Construction is a particularly carbon-intensive industry. Carbon neutral buildings reduce or offset the carbon emissions produced in their construction and over their life cycle. They are energy efficient structures that integrate passive strategies and often include renewable energy strategies to offset the carbon released in their construction process. n
Foster + Partners is the first architecture practice to sign up to the Net Zero Carbon Buildings Commitment, meaning that by 2030 all buildings created by the practice will be carbon neutral. The firm has joined 23 cities, including New York, London and Tokyo, in signing the commitment, which aims to reduce the built environment's contribution to climate change. "We are proud to be the first architecture practice to sign up to the Net Zero Carbon Buildings Commitment, and welcome the Advancing Net Zero Status Report 2019 by the World
M LH M FU HA &
20
Foster + Partners to design only carbon-neutral buildings by 2030
& ON GT A IN LSE ITH NS HE M KE C ERS AM
University College London's Bartlett School of Planning is to carry out an audit funded by the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) and the Place Alliance, a non-profit network whose supporters include the Planning Officers Society, Civic Voice, and the Local Government Information Unit. Between 2005 and 2007 CABE conducted three regional audits covering the whole of England. CPRE says the new audit will use CABE’s methodology to assess at least 100 large residential projects across England and is intended to provide data to allow comparisons between regions and different approaches to development. External residential environments of developments will be assessed against 17 criteria including housing types, community facilities, public transport, highways, parking, environmental impact, landscape, character, and architectural quality. The Bartlett will be supported by professional advisers from consultancies Arup, JTP, Spawforths and URBED, and volunteers. Matthew Carmona, professor at the Bartlett, is leading the research. He told BDonline: "We know much about the numbers of houses we are delivering nationally, but almost nothing about their quality. A housing design audit aims to address that gap and provide a baseline from which to make more informed judgements about the standard of housing design that we should be expecting nationally and locally.” An advisory group includes the Home Builders Federation, the Urban Design Group, the Academy of Urbanism, the Design Council, the UK Green Building Council, and the Institute for Highways and Transportation. The work is expected to be completed in the autumn and the results will be submitted to the government’s Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission. n
H NWIC GREE BEXLEY
LEWISHAM
MERTON
SUTTON CROYDON
BROMLEY
LONDONBOROUGHS
WHO RUNS MY COUNCIL? | NEWGATE COMMUNICATIONS
CONSERVATIVE INDEPENDENT/OTHER LABOUR LIBERAL DEMOCRAT NO OVERALL CONTROL/COALITION SCOTTISH NATIONAL PARTY PLAID CYMRU
SHETLAND ISLANDS
who runs my council.
ORKNEY ISLANDS
2019
whorunsmycouncil.co.uk
Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (WESTERN ISLANDS)
MORAY
HIGHLAND
ABERDEENSHIRE ABERDEEN
ANGUS PERTH & KINROSS DUNDEE
FIFE STIRLING
ARGYLL & BUTE
CLACKMANNANSHIRE
WEST DUNBARTONSHIRE
INVE RCL YDE
GLASGO W
HIRE REWS RENF
AY NOR RS TH HIR E
FALKIRK
EAST DUNBARTONSHIRE
RE EA NFR ST EW SH IRE
EAST LOTHIAN
EDINBURGH WEST NORTH LOTHIAN LANARKSHIRE
MIDLOTHIAN
SOUTH LANARKSHIRE
SCOTTISH BORDERS
EAST AYRSHIRE
NORTHUMBERLAND
CUMBRIA
DUMFRIES AND GALLOWAY
SCARBOROUGH
MIDDLESBROUGH
ERCEST WORSHIRE
RICHMONDSHIRE
SOUTH LAKELAND
HAMBLETON
CRAVEN
WAKEFIELD
KIN WE G’S L ST YN NO N & RFO LK
KING STON THAM UPON ES
AS HF OR D
HILLIN GDON
ME DW AY
SEV ENO AKS T
CA NT ER BU RY
NORT EAST HAMP TONS HIRE
BR BO OXUR NE
ST ALBANS
THRE E RIV ERS
BIR MIN GH AM
RE DD ITCH
SWIN DON
WOKINGHAM
MANC HEST ER
N UN EW DE CA R STL LY E M E
CAN CH NOC AS K E
SOUTH STAFF ORD SHIR E
SA NDW EL L
DUD LEY
BO LSOV ER
BRACKN ELL FOREST
& ONB M R AL ID GR LIN GE AVES HAM G
HASTINGS
&
EALING
OW SL UN RICHMOND UPON THAMES HO
W ES TM IN ST ER
HA CK NE Y
WANDSWORTH
CITY OF LONDON
BETH LAM
ROTHER
NE TO ES LK FO
E TH HY
THANET
DOVER
CA MD EN
REDBRIDGE
BARKING & NEW HAM DAGENHAM TOWER
HAMLETS
SOUTHWARK
BRIGHTON & HOVE
SWALE
MAIDSTONE
HARINGEY
BRENT
WALTHAM FOREST
SOUTHEND-ON-SEA CASTLE POINT
M LH M FU HA &
ADUR ING RTH WO
ISLE OF WIGHT
HORSHAM
ARUN
S WE LE
HA VA NT
MID SUSSEX
HARROW
ROCHFORD
TUNB RIDGE WELL S
N LDE WEA
LEY CRAW
ENFIELD BARNET
MALDON
ON NGT ISLI
DARTFORD
MOLEEY VALL
TE ND RIN G
& ON GT A IN LSE ITH NS HE M KE C ERS AM
WAVERLEY
CHICHESTER
FAREHAM
NEW FOREST
BRENTWOOD
EAST SUFFOLK
IPSWICH
BABERGH BRAINTREE
RD N SFO DO ELM SIL CH BA
GUILDFORD
TANDRIGE
SOUTHAMPTON
DORSET
EPPING FOREST
MID SUFFOLK
ER ST HE LC CO
E HERTSMER
HARLOW
WATFORD
WINCHESTER
SOUTH SOMERSET
D FOR LES UTT
EAST HERTFORDSHIRE
REIGATE & BANSTEAD
EAST HAMPSHIRE
RUNN
EY RR SU ATH G HE WOKIN
RUSHMOOR
WEST SUFFOLK
CK THURRO
HELT NE SP OR E YMED
TEST VALLEY
HART
EAST CAMBRIDGESHIRE
CAM SOUTH BRIDGESHIRE
WYN D WEL FIEL HAT
BASINGSTOKE & DEANE
N ER ILT CH
TORBAY
READING
WILTSHIRE
SOUTH BUCKS
SOUTH NORFOLK
GE BRID CAM
L E RA HIR E NT DS H IR RT SH CE FOR E NO ORD AG D EN F STEV BE LUTON HERT
GREAT YARMOUTH
NORWICH
FENLAND
BEDFORD
WIND MAIDE SOR & NHEA D
TH OU SM RT T PO OR SP GO
SOUTH HAMS
WEST BERKSHIRE
BROADLAND
BRECKLAND
PETERBOROUGH
DACORUM
IGH LE ST EA
EXET ER
TEIGNBRIDGE
VALE OF WHITE HORSE
TH, OU YM CH NE HUR E UR BO HRISTCPOOL C AND
WEST DEVON
EAST DEVON
MENDIP
EN EV ST KE
R OO EM DG SE
N MID DEVO
GL OU S CE OU S TH
TE BR RS HIR IST OL E NORTH SOMERSET BATH & NE SOMERSET
COTSWOLD
NORTH NORFOLK SOUTH HOLLAND
HUNTINGDONSHIRE
AYLESBURY VALE
WEST OXFORDSHIRE
E MB CO WY
NEWPORT
STROUD
WELLINGBOROUGH
H SHIRE SOUT MILTON PTON KEYNES THAM NOR
RD FO OX
Y FILL CAER
FA TOR
SOM ANDERSET TAU WES NTO T N
IRE SH TH OU NM MO EN
TORRIDGE
PLYMOUTH
ON CYN DDA- F RHON -TAF
D GEN CARDIFF BRID VALE OF GLAMORGAN
NO RT HD EV ON
CORNWALL
THYR MER DFIL TY
SEA AN SW
U NA T AE EN BL GW
NEATH PORT TALBOT
CHELTENHAM
CORBY
DAVENTRY
NORTHAMPTON
STRATFORD ON AVON
TEWKESBURY
FOREST OF DEAN
HARBOROUGH
RUGBY
WYC HAV ON
GLOUCESTER
OADBY & WIGSTON
G IN ER TT KE
NUNEATON & BEDWORTH
COVENTRY
WARWICK
BOSTON
RUTLAND
LEICESTER
L EL W ER CH
HILLS ERN MALV
HEREFORDSHIRE
NORTH KESTEVEN
H UT SO
SOLIHULL
BROMSGROVE
WO RC ES TE R
HINCKLEY & BOSWORTH
Y AB BL
POWYS
H AS EW ER
WYRE FOREST
CEREDIGION
TAMWORTH
COUNTYCOUNCILS
EAST LINDSEY
R TE NO ES IC LE
LICHFIELD
N LIN OR CO TH LN EA SH ST IR E
LINCOLN
NEWARK & SHERWOOD
G IN DL GE
EOK NT ST -TRE ON
DERBY
WOLVER- WALSALL HAMPTON
SHROPSHIRE
AMBER VALLEY
KENT EAST SUSSEX
WEST LINDSEY
W ETLA BASS
RUSHCLIFFE EAST TH IRE STAFFORDSHIRE SOU YSH ST E MELTON E RB W SHIR DE TH R CHARNWOOD
STAFFORD TELFORD & WREKIN
D IEL RF ESTE CH
NORTH EAST DERBYSHIRE
LD TOWE ASHFIE BROX
STAFFORDSHIRE MOORLANDS
NORTH LINCOLNSHIRE
SHEFFIELD
HIGH PEAK
IRE DALES DERBYSH
E HIR TS IN IRE FL HSH BIG DEN
T AS EE HIR ES CH
M HA ER TH RO
EY SL OW L KN OO RP LIVE
STOCKPORT
HALTON
DONCASTER
BARNSLEY
CHESHIRE WEST & CHESTER
GWYNEDD
PE MB RO KE SH IRE
KIRKLEES
OLDHAM TAMESIDE
SUFFOLK
ESSEX
SURREY WEST SUSSEX
DEVON
EP & EWSOM ELL
ROCHDALE
ORD SALF D OR FF GTON TRA RRIN WA
MANS FIELD
WIGAN
D TFOR HER HIRE -S
HAMPSHIRE
SOMERSET
KINGSTON UPON HULL
CALDERDALE
ROSSENDALE
ST HELENS
WR EXH AM
EAST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE
SELBY
LEEDS
NOTTING HAM
ON FT SE
WIRRAL
CONWY
BRADFORD
BURNLEY
BURY
CHORLEY WEST LANCASHIRE BOLTON
ANGLESEY
PENDLE
SO OXFO UTH RDSH IRE
RI TH SOU
N KBUR EN BLAC DARW WITH
N FYLDE PRESTO E BBL
HARROGATE YORK
RIBBLE VALLEY HYNDBU RN
BLACKPOOL
GLOUTHESTERSHIRE
EL MBR IDGE
LANCASTER
WYRE
NORT WARW H ICKSH IRE
BARROW-INFURNESS
ON PT CAMBRIDGEAM E SHIRE
AM INGHE BUCKSHIR
RYEDALE
NORFOLK
LEICESTERSHIRE
H IR WARWICKRT SH SHIRE NO
HA VE RIN G
AN D
REDCAR & CLEVELAND
NOTING HAMSHI RE
-ON DA RL -TEES ING TO N
E LINCOLNSHIR
E HIR BYS DER
HARTLEPOOL STOCKTON
EDEN EL
LANCASHIRE
SUNDERLAND
DURHAM
ALLERDALE CO P
S. TYNESIDE
GATESHEAD
STAF FORD SHIRE
CARLISLE
NORTH YORKSHIRE
N. TYNESIDE
NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE
OXFORDSHIRE
SOUTH AYRSHIRE
H NWIC GREE BEXLEY LEWISHAM
MERTON
SUTTON CROYDON
BROMLEY
EASTBOURNE
LONDONBOROUGHS
About Newgate. We provide specialist communications advice to clients across the property spectrum from helping secure planning permission, delivering construction comms, protecting corporate reputation, issues management, placemaking through to promoting apartments, office space and retail outlets.
At a local level, our community engagement team, founded in 1990 as PPS Group, has unrivalled expertise working with clients from housebuilders and retailers, to transport, leisure and infrastructure providers helping to build relationships with key stakeholders, organisations, local communities and the media.
www.planninginlondon.com
Our footprint includes offices in London, Bristol, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Leeds and Manchester. For all the data behind this map and the most up-to-date information visit whorunsmycouncil.co.uk
©
To order additional copies of this map email freemap@newgatecomms.com
newgatecomms.com Issue 110 July-September 2019
21
BRIEFING
BRIEFING Heathrow reveals plans for expansion The potential scale of disruption from Heathrow Airport’s controversial expansion project has been revealed, including plans to lower the M25 for the third runway to cross, reroute rivers, replace utilities and build car parks for nearly 50,000 cars reports www.infrastructure-intelligence.com. Heathrow, though, said expansion should “not come at any cost” and has outlined plans for lowemission zones and congestion charges to stem local air pollution. It plans to expand in phases up to 2050, with new terminal buildings added after the new runway opens in 2026, as passenger numbers reach a forecast 140 million a year. The news comes as the airport launched a 12week statutory consultation on expansion on its preferred masterplan for the project, with business leaders and the construction industry welcoming the plans. Emma Gilthorpe, Heathrow’s executive director for expansion, said: “Expansion must not come at any cost. That is why we have been working with partners at the airport, in local communities and in government to ensure our plans show how we can grow sustainably and responsibly – with environmental considerations at the heart of expansion. This consultation is an opportunity for people to have their say on our preferred masterplan, so it’s really important that as many people as possible take part.” David Barwell, chief executive, UK & Ireland, AECOM, said: “It’s vitally important to the UK economy that the expansion of Heathrow Airport goes ahead, and the unveiling of their preferred masterplan is an important step forward in making this a reality. However, I also whole-heartedly agree that the expansion must not come at any cost. I’m extremely pleased to see the importance the consultation places on working with local communities to grow sustainably and responsibly, with a strong emphasis on environmental considerations.” Civil Engineering Contractors Association (CECA) chief executive Alasdair Reisner said: “Addressing Britain’s airport capacity gap will be fundamental to ensuring we remain globally competitive in terms of trade after Brexit, as well as boosting economic growth across the whole of the UK. Currently, the capacity gap is costing the UK an estimated £1.2bn a year. We welcome the opportunity for consultation,
22
Planning in London
and look forward to the significant benefits Heathrow expansion will deliver in securing postBrexit economic growth.” However, the plans are set to meet serious opposition from environmental and community campaigners, with the Green Party amongst those arguing that Heathrow’s expansion plans “make a mockery of the government’s zero emissions strategy.” Jonathan Bartley, Green Party co-leader said: "We are in a climate emergency. The Committee on Climate Change has already said a net-zero carbon target means the government has to rethink aviation expansion. This is something the government has clearly failed to grasp. Its actions are a direct opposite to its words.” The deadline for responding to the consultation is 13 September 2019. Feedback can be submitted in a number of ways, including online. Following the conclusion of the consultation and after feedback has been incorporated, Heathrow will submit a final proposal to the secretary of state for transport in 2020. The decision on whether to grant the development consent order will be made by the secretary of state following a public examination period.
Approval rates across London boroughs The May elections in 2018 saw significant change across London. Across the capital, one in every two councillors on the main planning committee were newly elected and 20 new planning committee Chairs have influenced planning decisions over the last year advises BECG, the built environment communications group. We have taken a look at every borough in London to assess their decision making in the 12 months since May 2018. Our focus has been on the main
committees – those dealing with larger and more strategic applications (SEE TABLE RIGHT). Committees across London operate in different ways. Some, like Wandsworth, use their one committee to consider all applications – large and small – while others like Barnet preserve their main committee for larger applications and allow area committees to decide on smaller or household applications. The general story is positive; pro-regeneration boroughs with strong political and officer leadership rank highly for approvals – Brent, Ealing and Hackney deliver almost universally positive determinations. Barnet, Tower Hamlets and Kingston – not seen normally as consistent decision-makers – have approved every single application recommended for approval this year. Bromley and Kensington & Chelsea remain difficult, while formerly pro-regeneration boroughs such as Haringey and Hounslow are starting to flex their muscles with some refusals. For many, the number of large applications coming forward is extraordinarily low. Lewisham has considered just two applications all year – both for the same scheme – refusing initially and then approving a slightly amended town centre scheme later in the year. In Kingston, almost half of the committees have been cancelled due to a lack of applications ready for decision and a similar lack of activity is evident elsewhere. In a year we have London Mayoral elections and major applications will start to become ever more political. Committees, some of whom will have new Chairmen and members for the year 2019/20, will be under greater pressure to make tough decisions in a febrile political environment. The Mayor will also be reluctant – unless clear political advantage can be gained – to hold any hearings beyond Autumn 2019 and the first part of 2020 could see a slowdown in major applications.
LEFT London borough decision making in the 12 months since May 2018 Chart: becg planning committee research May 2019
Slowdown in permissions continues The latest planning application statistics from MHCLG, (SEE Briefing) show that in the year ending March 2019, district-level authorities granted 357,700 decisions, down five per cent on the year ending March 2018. They granted 46,800 decisions on residential developments, of which 6,300 were for major developments and 40,500 were for minors, down by three, two and five per cent respectively on the year ending March 2018, according to the figures. The MHCLG also said that, according to provisional figures obtained with the assistance of consultants Glenigan, permission for 361,800 homes was given in the rolling year to 31 March 2019, down from the 380,500 homes granted permission in the rolling year to 31 March 2018. Both of these figures were higher than the figure for 2017 (313,700) and the latest figure whilst lower than the total for 2018 - remained the second highest for more than ten years. District planning authorities decided 88 per cent of major applications within 13 weeks or the agreed time limit, according to the figures, down one per cent from the previous quarter. Some 84 per cent of minor applications were granted within eight weeks and 89 per cent of other applications were decided within eight weeks, both also down one per cent on the previous quarter, the statistics show. Research by the RTPI this week showed that council housebuidling levels had reached 13,000 >>> last year, the highest number for two decades.
www.planninginlondon.com
Issue 110 July-September 2019
23
BRIEFING
RIGHT: An indicative image of the temporary House of Commons Chamber, which will feature new public and press galleries, public spaces for visitors, and education and participation spaces. Source: Allford Hall Monaghan Morris
>>> SAVE’s
rival scheme for parliament relocation dismissed The team behind the planned temporary home for the House of Commons has dismissed ‘less destructive’ alternatives proposed by SAVE Britain’s Heritage, reports the AJ. Architect AHMM has designed a commons chamber inside Grade II* listed Richmond House, designed by Whitfield Partners in the 1980s. Campaign group SAVE Britain’s Heritage says its rival scheme would spare the ‘superb’ 1980s building from being almost completely flattened. Under the £400 million Parliament-backed proposal – part of a wider BDP-led decant of the Palace of Westminster into parliament’s northern estate – only the Whitehall façade of the Whitfield building would be retained as the interior made way for a debating chamber and office space for hundreds of MPs and support staff. The House of Commons commission has insisted that, following extensive scrutiny and investigation, the proposed scheme is the most viable option. AHMM cofounder Paul Monaghan added that the massive intervention into the Whitfield building was justified by the ‘exceptional circumstances’. SAVE claims its alternative plans show how both the Commons and Lords chambers could be accommodated within existing buildings on the parliamentary estate. Its proposals, drawn up by Ian Chalk Architects, would see the ‘pop-up’ chambers built within the courtyards of HM Treasury and the Foreign Office, connected by King Charles Street. SAVE’s document The Temporary Home for MPs Must not be a Folly, also includes alternatives previously prepared by Foster + Partners – a temporary parliament building on Horseguards Parade – and a design by Hopkins showing how a Commons chamber could fit within the existing atrium of that practice’s Portcullis House. The organisation argues there were at least eight alternative sites in the vicinity of Richmond House and Whitehall that ‘did not involve the level of waste, expense and destruction as currently proposed’. But a spokesperson for the Northern Estate Programme has fired back a strongly worded defence of its own outline plans, adding that, following a year-long inquiry by the joint committee
24
Planning in London
on the Palace of Westminster, all the alternative plots proposed by SAVE had been looked at and ruled out. ‘Of all the options considered within London, only the Northern Estate can deliver the spatial requirements for the House of Commons to operate within a single safe and secure site…(This decision) was endorsed by the Public Accounts Committee in 2017’, quotes the AJ.
New DLR trains in 2013 TfL has announced plans to replace the oldest trains currently serving the railway. It has awarded a £350m contract to design and manufacture new trains to CAF of Spain. The 43 new trains in the initial contact include 33 to replace the oldest rolling stock on the DLR network, and an additional ten to boost capacity. The order will replace the oldest rolling
stock on the DLR which are nearly 30 years old and have come to the end of their design life. TfL say these old trains are in vital need of replacement to ensure a reliable service is maintained for customers. Commuters using the Docklands Light Railway will benefit from “more frequent and reliable journeys from 2023,” says TfL. With over 400,000 journeys made each weekday, the DLR is the busiest light railway in the UK and operates across six 'opportunity areas' in London, which have the potential to provide more than 124,000 homes and 200,000 jobs. There are around 45,000 of these homes already under construction, or with planning permission, within walking distance of the DLR. Let’s hope the new trains have rubber tyres as per the original spec which was dumbed down by builders Mowlem.
London's 'neighbourhood planning deserts' A new study reveals that there were 12 ‘made’, or adopted, neighbourhood plans in seven boroughs at the end of 2018/19. Four were in Camden. Ealing and Kensington and Chelsea both had two plans while Brent, the City of Westminster, Richmond and Sutton each had one. Since the report’s publication, the Harlesden Neighbourhood Plan in Brent also passed a local referendum, on 30 May 2019, with a 90 per cent ‘yes’ vote on a turnout of 11 per cent. The State of Neighbourhood Planning in London 2018/19 report was prepared on behalf of volunteer organisation Neighbourhood Planners London by Consultancy Publica. The study offers an overview of neighbourhood planning in the capital. (SEE their diagram RIGHT). Of the 24 boroughs with no made neighbourhood plans, nine are described as "neighbourhood planning deserts" with not even any designated neighbourhood forums: Barking and Dagenham; Bromley; the City of London; Croydon; Harrow; Havering; Merton; Newham; and Redbridge. According to the study, the number of neighbourhood forums being designated per year peaked at 18 in 2014/15 but has declined every year since. Only two forums have been designated in each of the last two financial years. However, the number of neighbourhood plans being adopted has been steadily increasing and doubled from six to 12 in 2018/19. The average time taken from neighbourhood forum designation to plan referendum is 49 months, according to the research.
Epping Forest top for green belt housing All but four of the top 20 local authorities with the highest proportion of residential addresses created in the green belt are located in the South East and East of England regions, new MHCLG figures show. However, Purbeck District Council in the South West of England topped the table for the highest levels of green belt housing development, sharing the number one spot with Epping Forest Council in east London, despite designated green belt only comprising 19 per cent of its local authority area. Seventeen
www.planninginlondon.com
of the top 20 councils represent areas where more than 70 per cent of land is designated green belt. The statistics also reveal that half of the top 20 local authorities with the highest proportion of housing development on brownfield land are located within Greater London. The City of London saw 100 per cent of new residential addresses created on previously developed
land in the three years between 2015/16 and 2017/18, followed by Westminster City Council with 98 per cent and Camden Council with 96 per cent. Luton Borough Council and Portsmouth City Council both had the highest proportions of brownfield development outside London, sharing fourth place with the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea at 92 per cent. – Planning n
Issue 110 July-September 2019
25
BRIEFING: DELOITTE LONDON CRANE SURVEY
London Office Crane Survey key findings
Volume under construction (million sq ft)
*"*$
)%+&-
Docklands
!"'$
Southbank
*"#$ *"-$
."/$ The City
West End King’s Cross
*"*$ !",$
'< schemes under construction
3%')075
6-''%5,)05
Percentage of pre-completion space let by sector
%$" 232
$$" of space under construction is let
&'
"
4%5-5&%-.
!"
!"#$%&"' offices
26
Planning in London
!"
/0#10#-)"
#"
()*"#
#"
Professional
$"
+",-.
%"
Insurance
New construction starts: volume (million sq ft) and number
!")$%&-( 3%')075
!"#$%&'(
King’s Cross
*",$%&**(
Total number of new starts
%(
The City
High (Q1 2016)
!"!$%&!(
$)
6-''%5,)05
8$"#-,"
&$
!")$%&**( West End
!"*$%&*( Southbank
!"+$%&,(
Low (Q3 2010)
*
Docklands
Headline results Office construction is )%+&,-,./,019 )&" up on previous survey
%( new schemes start across .23 submarkets
%+$,-,./,01 of new space started, the highest volume since Q1 2016
Surge in new construction in 42567.,89:..;, with new starts totalling <+',-,./,01
Completions fall by $<" survey on survey, to &+),-,./,01
$$" of space under construction is =>9?=@A,>?1
2019 office B:-C>?12:5. on course to -=1BD,&<)!
Demolition levels are )<+%,-,./,01 %5'%&-)%5, confidence to build
Long term pipeline totals %<-,./,01, &%" down over the last two years
Demand for E9=@? A offices will remain strong in order to attract the best talent, despite taking less space per worker
Landlords to expect further flexibility 9?/F29?-?51.9 both specifications and lease terms
Refurbishments as more sustainable .:>F12:5 to new-build construction in tackling climate change
Outlook
www.deloitte.co.uk/cranesurvey www.deloitte.co.uk/realestate www.deloitte.co.uk/dreblog
www.planninginlondon.com
Issue 110 July-September 2019
27
¡PILLO!
¡PILLO!
Building permit granted after 137 years We sometimes complain that our planning process is slow but get this. The Sagrada Familia, (RIGHT) designed by Antoni Gaudí, which has been under construction since 1882, has just been granted its first building permit by Barcelona's city authority. Apparently the church is a bit behind with the fees and will now be paying €4.6 million to the city for the permit, on top of the €36 million it has already agreed to pay for the expenses generated by years of building work. The official permit from the local council will allow the UNESCO world heritage site to be completed, reports Dezeen. At last.
Shed may be exterminated because of Dalek display Neil Cole, an art teacher, is embroiled in a planning row over the latest addition at his Museum of Classic Sci-Fi, which he founded last October in the cellar of his Grade II-listed, Georgian townhouse in Allendale, Northumberland. The Guardian reports that to keep a replica Dalek dry Cole built it a little wooden shed, raising the hackles of Northumberland County Council’s planning overlords, who said it was out of keeping with his period property and needs consent.
28
Planning in London
University to name building after Terry Farrell Sir Terry Farrell is to have a building named in his honour where he studied architecture in the late 1950s and early 1960s. The Farrells founder was a student at Newcastle University’s School of Architecture and last year donated £1m and his archive to them.
The university has announced that it will rename its grade II-listed Claremont Building the Terry Farrell Building. The Victorian former department store was bought by the university in the 1960s and was used by Terry in his final year. However most of it is currently mothballed and a regeneration project is due to begin later this year. When it reopens, it will include a major exhibition area for architecture and urban design, space for events, study and research and a business start-up area for recent graduates. Newcastle University said the new facilities would be “anchored” around Farrell’s archive. Farrell said he was “delighted” to have the building named after him. Pictured RIGHT is Farrell as a building in Louis Hellman’s celebrated Architêtes series.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
CLIPBOARD
CLIPBOARD
LETTERS
From: Michael Bach London Forum of Amenity and Civic Societies
New high street freedoms need a wider range of uses Sir, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) answering House of Lords questions on 4th July said: “Permitted development rights for change of use are part of a package of measures brought forward to support the modernisation of our high streets, helping them adapt to provide for a mix of retail, leisure, community and residential uses. The rights for change of use from shops and financial services to residential use are subject to prior approval by the local planning authority, allowing them to consider the impact of the proposed change of use on the sustainability of the town centre and on an adequate provision of retail services”. So what does that leave if A1, A2, A5 + amusement arcades (and launderettes) can change to housing using PDRs – just A3 and A4? Interesting that offices were not mentioned. If just about everything can turn into housing under permitted development rights, what is left of the high street? Or am I missing something? And all of this is being done to help the high street? Which centres will see improvement as a result of all this? Additional housing, unless it is a really substantial amount (say more than 1,000 units), will not support many additional facilities, not even a corner shop! Where is the evidence to support this free-forall? n
www.planninginlondon.com
Another go at South Ken Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners’ vision for South Kensington tube station includes upgrading entrances, restoring its Grade II-listed arcade and building a five-storey semi-circular addition next door. The architect is part of the team led by developer Native Land that was appointed by Transport for London last year to deliver the scheme. As well as aesthetic improvements, the proposals would deliver step-free access to the ticket hall and District and Circle line platforms via a new entrance on Thurloe Street. The building will provide a range of shops, restaurants and workspaces and 40 homes nearby.
Johnson pledges to 'save the Great British high street' Boris Johnson has "pledged to save the Great British high street" if he becomes prime minister
From: Andrew Rogers Chairman, ACA Planning Action Group
Just three use classes would be sufficient Sir, Daniel Moylan speaking to The London Society (as reported in PiL 109) proposed reduction of the Use
reports The Telegraph. Johnson says he will adopt a three-stage plan to help retailers combat the rise of internet shopping, it says. He says he will scrap business rates on free-touse cash machines in town centres, streamline the process for changing the use of retail outlets, and bring forward and increase a £675 million fund established last year to help town centres make long-term investments in infrastructure and regeneration.
Wise words from the K&C MP Emma Dent Coad, interviewed by the AJ: “What happened at Grenfell shows that the construction industry needs wholesale change. She urges achitects “to step up and take charge of the entire design process. It’s for architect to say: we have the expertise; we’ve learned how to do this at vast expense; we are not going to draw things out and let other people bugger them up. Architects shouldn’t draw their extensive plans and walk away from projects.” Is anyone listening? n
Classes Order (UCO) to four categories: residential & ancillary, countryside & ancillary, commercial & ancillary, and industrial & ancillary. The Association of Consultant Architects has for many years also argued for simplification of the UCO. We believe that just three use classes would be sufficient - Residential, Noxious and Other. And preferably without subdivisions. n
Issue 110 July-September 2019
29
BRIEFING | PLANNING PERFORMANCE
Downward trend continues for applications and decisions and permitted development PN approvals Latest planning performance by English districts and London boroughs: Planning Applications in England: January to March 2019 OVERVIEW Between January to March 2019, district level planning authorities in England: • received 111,300 applications for planning permission, down five per cent on the corresponding quarter of 2018; • granted 81,500 decisions, down seven per cent from the same quarter in 2018; this is equivalent to 88 per cent of decisions, unchanged from the same quarter of 2018; • decided 88 per cent of major applications within 13 weeks or the agreed time, down one percentage point from the same quarter in 2018. • granted 11,200 residential applications, down six per cent on a year earlier: 1,600 for major developments and 9,600 for minors; • granted 2,000 applications for commercial developments, down 11 per cent on a year earlier. Figure 1 shows trends in numbers of applications received, decided and granted since 2004-05. In the year ending March 2019, district level planning authorities: • granted 357,700 decisions, down five per cent on the year ending March 2018; and, • granted 46,800 decisions on residential developments, of which 6,300 were for major developments and 40,500 were for minors, down by three two and five per cent respectively on the year ending March 2018. Planning applications During January to March 2019, authorities undertaking district level planning in England received 111,300 applications for planning permission, down five per cent on the corresponding quarter in 2018. In the year ending March 2019, authorities received 447,900 planning applications, down five per cent on the year ending March 2018 (Live Table P134, Table 1 and Detail of district matters decisions table). Planning decisions Authorities reported 93,000 decisions on planning
30
Planning in London
applications in January to March 2019, a decrease of seven per cent on the 100,200 decisions in the same quarter of the previous year. In the year ending March 2019, authorities decided 406,200 planning applications, down six per cent on the number in the year ending March 2018 (Live Tables P120/P133/P134 and Table 1). Applications granted During January to March 2019, authorities granted 81,500 decisions, down seven per cent on the same quarter in 2018. Authorities granted 88 per cent of all decisions, unchanged from the March quarter of 2018 (Live Tables P120/P133). Overall, 83 per cent of major and minor decisions were granted, an increase of one percentage point from the quarter ending March 2018 (Comparison between local authorities table). Over the 12 months to March 2019, 357,700 decisions were granted, down five per cent on the figure for the year to March 2018 (Table 1, Comparison between local authorities table and Details of district matters decisions table). Historical context Figure 1 and Table 1 show that, since about 200910, 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 (April to June quarter for applications and July to September for decisions) and troughs in the Autumn (October to December quarter for applications and January to March quarter for decisions), there was a clear downward trend during the 2008 economic downturn, with figures remaining broadly level since then. Historical figures for all district level decisions dating back to 2007-08 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.
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 (14 to 100 per cent), followed by minor developments (46 to 100 per cent) and other developments (62 to 100 per cent) (Live Tables P120A and P120B do not between them cover the totality of decisions included in P120, which also includes decisions on Traveller caravan pitches and various ‘Other developments’. Tables P120/Comparison between local authorities table). Speed of decisions • In January to March 2019, 88 per cent of major applications were decided within 13 weeks or within the agreed time, down one percentage point from the same quarter a year earlier. • In January to March 2019, 84 per cent of minor applications and 89 per cent of other applications were decided within eight weeks or the agreed time, both down one percentage point from a year earlier respectively. Figure 3 summarises the distribution of the percentage 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 (15 to 100 per cent), followed by other developments (22 to 100 per cent)
RIGHT: FIGURE 1 Number of planning applications received, decided and granted by district level planning authorities
and minor developments (27 to 100 per cent) (Live Tables P120, Comparison between local authorities table, and Details of district matters decisions table). Use of performance agreements Table 2 shows the increase in the use of performance agreements since April 2014. It shows that they are more commonly used for major developments than minor or other developments, with 67 per cent of major decisions made during January to March 2019 involving a planning agreement, compared with 43 per cent of minor decisions. Figure 4 shows, from 2009, 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. In reality, this longer upward trend has been driven by both the additional scope for recording them and their additional use. The three final columns in Live Table P120 give
www.planninginlondon.com
Planning decisions by development type, speed of decision and local planning authority. Table 131 can be found with all tables and figures here: http://bit.do/eXNb6 Source: MHCLG/ONS corresponding figures for planning applications involving a planning agreement for all types of development (major, minor and ‘other’ combined), showing numbers of decisions and percentages decided within time.. Figure 5 and Reference Table 2 show that in the quarter to March 2019, 91 per cent of major development decisions involving performance agreements were made on time. In comparison, 82 per cent of major decisions not involving performance agreements were made within the statutory time limit of 13 weeks. Performance of individual district level local planning authorities Live Tables P151a and P153 present data on the performance of district level local planning
authorities against the latest 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 most recent quarters. Similarly, Live Table P152a, presents data on the performance of district level local planning authorities against the latest 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 on appeals. This table is usually published a few weeks after the statistical release and most of the other live tables, to take account of the latest appeals data. Live Table P154 presents data for the percentage of decisions on minor and other developments (as defined for Table P153) subject to a successful planning appeal, by matching eight quarters of the department’s data on decisions and all available quarters of Planning Inspectorate >>>
Issue 110 July-September 2019
31
BRIEFING | PLANNING PERFORMANCE
>>> 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 In January to March 2019, 14,900 decisions were made on applications for residential 5 developments, of which 11,200 (75 per cent) were granted. The total number of residential decisions made decreased by seven per cent from the March quarter of 2018, with the number granted dropping six per cent. The number of major residential decisions granted decreased by five per cent to 1,600, and the number of minor residential decisions granted decreased by six per cent to 9,600 (Live Table P120A, Details of district matters decisions table and Comparison of local authorities table). In the year ending March 2019, authorities granted 6,300 major and 40,500 minor residential applications, down by two and five per cent respectively on the year ending March 2018 (Live Table P120A and Comparison between local authorities table). Residential units 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.6 The latest provisional figures show that permission for 361,800 homes was given in the rolling year to 31 March 2019, down five per cent compared to the 380,500 homes granted permission in the rolling year to 31 March 2018. 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, and the latest quarter’s provisional figures tend to be revised upwards. These figures are provided here to give contextual information to users and have not been designated as National Statistics. Table 3 and Figure 6 show how the rolling annual total of housing units granted has changed since 2008. Rolling annual totals for each quarter from 2007 are held as linked open data on Open Data Communities at http://opendatacommunities.org/ data/planning/units-granted-permission/all-sites. Commercial decisions In January to March 2019, 2,200 decisions were made on applications for commercial develop-
32
Planning in London
ments, of which 2,000 (91 per cent) were granted. The total number of commercial decisions granted decreased by eleven per cent on the same quarter of 2018. In the year ending March 2019, 8,900 applications for commercial developments were granted, down 10 per cent on the year ending March 2018 (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, albeit with some decreases recently. Numbers of commercial decisions made also decreased sharply during 2008 and have since stabilised at around 2,100 per year for major and 10,000 per year for minor commercial decisions, albeit with some further decreases recently, particularly for minor decisions. In 2018/19, numbers of major commercial decisions were at about 54 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 7). 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 increased steadily, from 88 and 86 per cent respectively in 2008/09, to 94 and 91 per cent respectively in 2014/15, and have both been stable since then (Live Tables P120A FIG 9: Applications for prior approvals for permitted development rights reported by district planning authorities. England: 20 quarters from April 2014 to March 2019
and P120B, Figure 8). Householder developments Householder developments are those developments to a residence which require planning permission such as extensions, loft conversions and conservatories (more details are in the glossary accessible from the Definitions section). The number of decisions made on householder developments was 46,900 in the quarter ending March 2019, accounting for 50 per cent of all decisions, down seven per cent from the 50,200 decisions in the quarter ending March 2018. Authorities granted 90 per cent of these applications and decided 91 per cent within eight weeks or the agreed time (Reference Table 2 and Detail of district matters decisions table). 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 are in the Definitions section). The results for the latest quarter for which they have been collected (January to March 2019) are included in Live Tables PDR1 (local authority level figures) and PDR2 (England totals). Of the 7,800 applications reported in the January to March quarter of 2019, prior approval was not required for 4,200, and permission was granted for 1,900 and refused for 1,700. This resulted in an overall accep-
tance rate 9 of 78 per cent. Larger householder extensions accounted for 74 per cent of applications (5,700), with five per cent relating to office to residential changes and six per cent to agricultural to residential changes. ‘All other’ permitted development rights, accounted for 16 per cent of applications, up from 11 per cent a year earlier. Taking i) granted applications and ii) those for which prior approval was not required together, 6,100 applications were approved without having to go through the full planning process, down four per cent from a year earlier. Within an overall decrease of five per cent in the reported total number of PDR applications between January to March 2018 and January to March 2019: • larger householder extensions decreased by three per cent; • office to residential changes decreased by 20 per cent; • agricultural to residential changes decreased by three per cent; and • ‘all other’ permitted development rights decreased by three per cent. Figures for the total number of permitted development right applications made for changes to residential for quarters from July to September 2014 onwards are given in the quarterly worksheets in Live Table PDR1. These show that a total of 1,100 applications for changes to residential use were reported in January to March 2019, of which 800 (70 per cent) were given the go-ahead without having to go through the full planning process. The overall acceptance rate for the twenty quarters between the start of collection of detailed data in April 2014 and the end of March 2018 was 80 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 twenty quarters ending March 2019, district planning authorities reported 188,000 applications for prior approvals for permitted developments. For 107,000 (57 per cent) of them prior approval was not required, 44,000 (23 per cent) were granted and 37,000 (20 per cent) were refused (Figure 9). To put these recent figures into context, Live Table P128 and Figure 10 show how the number of ‘determination applications’ received remained broadly stable at around 5,000 to 8,000 per year from 2004/05 to 2012/13, but approximately doubled to 15,700 in 2013/14, following the creation of new permitted development right categories in May 2013. Since April 2014, there have been 36,500 PDR applications in 2014/15, 40,200 in 2015/16, 39,400 in 2016/17, 36,800 in 2017/18 and 35,100 in 2018/19. The quarterly pattern since April 2014 reflects a combination of both: i) the introduction
www.planninginlondon.com
of new permitted development right categories on several occasions; and ii) the seasonal peaks and troughs that have previously also been observed for planning applications, as shown earlier in this release, in Figure 1 (Live Table PDR 2 and Figure 10). The initially large increase since 2014 in reported numbers of PDR applications for a change of use
(e.g. office to residential), followed by a more recent decrease, is consistent with the annual numbers of dwellings added to the net housing supply as a result of a change of use. These have shown increases of 65 per cent in 2014/15, 48 per cent in 2015/16 and 22 per cent in 2016/17, and a decrease of 20 per cent in 2017/18. n
Issue 110 July-September 2019
33
BRIEFING | LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM
Town centres, building council houses & London Plan EiP update Minutes of the London Planning and Development Forum on 3rd June 2019. Full minute by Drummond Robson at planninginlondon.com > LP&DF DISCUSSION TOPICS: 1 Town Centres: Presentation by Dr Steven Norris (LSH). Steve is Director and head of PDR at LSH. He also sits on the REVO Planning Committee and Local Authority Groups; and is a Board Member of National Retail Planning Forum (NRPF). He has recently advised Nottingham, Oxford, Milton Keynes, Warwick, Newark, Hull and Basingstoke Councils on town centre and retail strategies, and regeneration projects . His background is as a Human Geographer – his PhD at Reading University was under Mike Breheny - and he studied town planning at UCL in the late 1990s under Sir Peter Hall. Steve explained that LSH advises the public and private sector on all aspects of regeneration – from appraisals, strategies and masterplanning, through to advising on public-private partnerships, and the funding and delivery of major mixed use regeneration schemes. He referenced the “golden age” of retail-led regeneration between 1995 and 2008 (e.g. Birmingham Bull Ring, Westfield in Stratford and Shepherds Bush, Liverpool One, and Princesshay in Exeter. Post 2008 there was a significant decline in the development of new retail floorspace (see figure, RIGHT).
Meeting on 3rd June 2019 at Rockwell Property with Jonathan Manns as host Brian Waters (Chairman) Andrew Rogers: Association of Consultant Architects Calum Ewing: Head of Property at Metrobank Prof Janice Morphet: UCL Duncan Bowie: UCL John Lett: formerly GLA Judith Ryser: Ugb/Cityscope Europe Liliana Shandbach: Development Manager HOME Group Michael Coupe: London Society and Coupe Planning
34
Planning in London
Michael Bach: London Forum Peter Eversden: London Forum Dr Steven Norris: National Head of Planning, Development &Regeneration (PDR) at Lambert Smith Hampton (LSH) Tim Wacher: RICS Tom Ball: London Forum Drummond Robson: Honorary Secretary Apologies from Jonathan Manns (unavoidably detained by late flight), Jessica Ferm, Michael Edwards, Ron Heath, Brian Whiteley
This was precipitated by the economic downturn and a significant decline in retail expenditure growth – both comparison and convenience goods spend – that impacted on investor and developer confidence. This decline in retail development was further impacted by the significant growth in the market share of online shopping between 2006 and 2019. It now accounts for a circa 20 per cent share of total retail sales. This has resulted in many retail casualties on the high street and the loss of jobs due to closures and restructuring https://www.retailresearch.org/ Steve suggested that previous investment and development models that characterized the 1990s to 2010 are “broken” and local authorities are hav-
Source: ONS and Experian
ing to take the lead in planning, funding and developing new town centre development. However they do not necessarily have the in-house resources or expertise to deliver and manage major mixed use development. Some £5bn has been invested by local authorities in property assets since 2016 – both within and outside their local authority areas. Local authorities are now the major investors in shopping centre assets – but what is the rationale for this given the private sector is disinvesting in shopping centres as their values fall? In conclusion Steve summarised his findings as follows: • The scale, pace and nature of change in the retail sector and property industry is unprecedented and permanent • Impact of internet and multi-channel retailing • Demand from retailers and casual dining sector is shrinking • Too much floorspace and wrongly configured • Occupancy costs – not a level playing field • Fragmented ownership and management across centres • Little appetitie amongst developers and invstors for risky, unviable development in subprime locations • Traditional development and investment models are “broken” Steve suggested that previous investment models that characterised the 1990s to 2010 are broken and local authorities are having to take the lead in planning, funding and developing new town centre development. However they do not necessarily have the in-house resources or expertise to deliver and manage mixed use development. In response to a question from Brian Waters asking about fortunes in London, he thought that the pattern was similar. Presentation by Calum Ewing - Head of Property at Metrobank Calum explained that there was a growing tendency in stores they have opened for seven day trading, notably in convenience goods. Alternative trading models were undoubtedly being considered. The future of SMEs were now more important as his home town of Saffron Walden demonstrates. Also multichannel retailing and the growing emphasis on online trading is a new factor as Steve Norris was showing, in forms such as click and collect. He explained that Metrobank was not looking at Town Centres by local authorities. Car park charges by contrast were a feature which need to be considered with care, to attract customers while remaining profitable. Metrobank also considered vehicles such as BiDs. He stressed the importance of active frontages to trading success >>>
www.planninginlondon.com
35
BRIEFING | LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM
>>> and profitability. Steve suggested that previous investment models that characterised the 1990s to 2010 are broken and local authorities are having to take the lead in planning, funding and developing new town centre development. However they do not necessarily have the in-house resources or expertise to deliver and manage mixed use development. Drummond Robson presented a District Centre Case Study for High Barnet – see feature following this report. 3. A general discussion on the effects of new Permitted Development Rights followed (See Brokenshire’s Ministerial Statement of 13.3.19) 4. Affordable Housing Discussion was led by UCL Prof. Janice Morphet (house building by councils) and Liliana Shanbhag a Development Manager at HOME Group, who deliver a good amount of affordable housing across the country. As increasingly recognised across the main political parties and commentators, one major reason for the 'housing crisis' is that local authorities ceased their role of direct housing providers in the 1980s. Since then, the shortfall in housing provision has mirrored the scale of the former local authority contribution to the market.”
36
Planning in London
Current research Local authority direct provision of housing survey funded by G L Hearn Local authorities direct provision of housing planning issues interim report with full desk survey of all LA activity March 2019 funded by RTPI Local authority direct provision of housing planning issues final report June 2019 funded by RTPI 1. G L Hearn survey 2019 Survey of local authority officers Follow up from survey in 2017 Primarily the same questions Asking about Motivation Means Methods Added question of JVs Responses: motivations Full results by local authority as at April 2019 https://www.rtpi.org.uk/media/3291304/tableoflocalauthorityhousingprovision2019.pdf. The phase 2 report was published on 24th June as outlined below by Janice Morphet. Responses: motivations Land and planning 61 per cent of authorities acquiring more land and/or buildings as part of a longer term investment strategy to support income For those authorities directly delivering housing, 95 per cent are building on their own land, 44 per cent are purchasing sites to develop, 42 per cent are
purchasing existing residential buildings, 17 per cent are using land from the One Public Estate initiative and 13 per cent using other public land 61 per cent of authorities directly delivering housing are accounting for this specifically in their local plans 2. RTPI local authority direct provision of housing desk survey 100 per cent Local authorities in England Repeats survey undertaken in 2017 Details of companies including propcos [property company deals], JVs, HRA [Housing Revenue Accounts], ALMOs [Arms Length Management Organisations] and land sales Weblinks to each council’s activity in providing housing primarily outside the HRA – rang of material including Council reports, press reports and trade websites Some analysis now – more to come in next report.
Desk survey findings In 2017, 57 per cent had companies; in 2019 it is 78 per cent In 2019, 57 per cent councils had some form of JV (JVs not counted separately in 2017) Of those councils without a company, 23 per cent of council exploring establishing a company Some councils that had a company in 2017 do not have one now Since January 2018, at least 119 new companies
have been established Many councils not in WOCs, JVs or HRA are delivering through ‘partnerships’ – need to do more work on this – RTPI questions being examined How can planning help to deliver more social and affordable housing How can the Housing Revenue Account be used to deliver more housing including the active use of RTB receipts? How are councils achieving housing delivery though General Fund investment either through directly owned housing companies or through direct provision without a company? How are councils using their s106 pots to prime and deliver housing development? What are councils doing to ensure that they are receiving clawback payments for the provision of additional housing following viability negotiations?
What are councils doing within their local plans to provide affordable housing? (RTPI questions continued) What are councils doing to provide special needs housing for example for the elderly? This could include approaches where local authorities are working directly with CCGs on transitional housing arrangements for those leaving hospital. How can local authorities obtain the best outcomes when they negotiate large housing developments or garden cities in terms of affordability and housing types to meet a range of local needs? What have local authorities learned using joint ventures and what do they regard as being the most successful arrangements? How are local authorities managing the planning processes when they are the developer? Quality is indicated as a major motivator for local authorities in the direct provision of housing. How do councils consider their direct provision of housing can make a contribution to the improvement of housing quality in their areas and how are they doing it? 3. Main research What have we found so far? • Planners need to operate in councils where there is a corporate commitment to delivery in housing provision • The approach to achieving delivery needs to be established in the Local Plan and other documents • Delivery needs to be a key issue in negotiation for each development • Delivery needs to be monitored Councils that are delivering have • their own development surveyor with experience of RPs and the private sector brought • planning and housing officers together into a housing delivery team • the HDT monitoring all housing sites for progress, quality and delivery of affordable housing • a housing delivery group of all providers that
www.planninginlondon.com
meets regularly • a housing delivery board that meets regularly to review progress The approach to achieving delivery needs to be established in the Local Plan and other documents. (Janice said that RPs are not so welcome now and Councils were recasting their approaches, considering whether to buy now or on a longer term. They were also looking towards building on their own land. She wondered if partnerships knew what they were doing now, too). Local Plans that are successful in delivery have a clear relationship with other parts of the council including CCG, housing strategy and delivery and services for older people, homelessness, PRS/HMOs It is using evidence on housing for the whole council eg JSNA [Joint Strategic Needs Assessment] not just using the NPPF It has a LP housing delivery strategy eg Bristol which assumes the council’s intervention in delivery in addition to LP targets Using deliverability as a test in call for sites in terms of profit margins and type of development proposed have joint working on direct supply with neighbouring authorities e.g. funding, nomination rights have a clear strategy for providing for the needs of its population not just market homes in NPPF eg older people in Wigan – strategy for new homes designed for older people have practical elements e.g. space standards, access standards, design SPDs e.g. Croydon for suburban areas Directly developing its own stock to demonstrate what quality standards are required Monitoring actively to achieve ends and intervening if necessary ie directly through acquisition and conversion
Achieving affordable housing • Prioritise affordable housing above other developer contributions • Develop council’s own schemes in policy compliance to demonstrate that it can be done • Consider profit margins in call for sites and how affordable contribution has been included • Indicate type of use on site allocations eg for older people, families at the same time as indicating the level of contributions required • Set evidence based targets using wellbeing powers for type and location for affordable homes, monitor their achievement • Use economic evidence from Local Industrial Strategy to support need for affordable housing • Assume that the provision required for affordable housing in local authority will not be provided through residual funding from market development – plan is only one means • Assume that the council will need to provide affordable housing directly using cross subsidy and/or Homes England grant
Conclusions • Need corporate commitment • Need relationships with providers • Need intensive monitoring and intervention for all sites • Need internal skills • Need commitment to own delivery • See LP as one only means to providing quality and affordable housing • Need to indicate type of development in site allocations • Need to negotiate the LP policies for each scheme through DM 5. Peter Eversden of the London Forum of Amenity and Civic Societies updated us on the London Plan EiP and its housing policy Affordable Housing Delivery in London The implications of the London Plan Recent housing delivery • Current London Plan target is 49,000 homes pa • Delivery in 2018-19 was 45,000 • Only 21 per cent were low cost rent type • The 2017 SHMA shows the requirement to be 66,000 new homes per year of which 47 per cent should be low cost rent and 18 per cent intermediate tenure • Unmet need backlog has been growing every year • The wrong types of homes are being delivered • The requirement for new market homes is 35 per cent • The Annual Monitoring Reports show that the market homes delivered have been one third over the target Examination in Public of the draft New London Plan commenced in January 2019 with a GLA statement: “80 per cent of all new homes delivered are affordable by only 8 per cent of Londoners” Sources of affordable homes Government grant £4.82bn for affordable homes is ring fenced to shared equity homes but SHMA need is 18 per cent Mayor’s aim is 116,000 new affordable homes by 2022 In 2018-19 14,544 were commenced, below 19,000 target and freedom from Government constraints is being sought GLA Group land target is 5,260 affordable starts by 2022 Other sources are Housing Associations and boroughs. The Mayor has allocated £100M to assist the latter but only a few boroughs have a clear programme for home building Small sites target 24,000 of NLP 65,000 annually - viability? >>>
Issue 110 July-September 2019
37
BRIEFING | LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM
>>> The Mayor’s ‘Fast Track’ route A 35 per cent affordable housing threshold has been set It was stated at the NLP EiP that the target is being met. The GLA Viability assessment team is available to boroughs. Percentage of low cost rent homes achieved is not clear. The Mayor has said he will increase the target to 50 per cent for “genuinely affordable homes”. Achievement by this programme will depend upon delivery rates by the main house builders
Transport schemes will have to be delivered TfL will have £742M loss in 2019-20 due to bus subsidy at record £722M and Crossrail delays High dependency on major developers to fund social infrastructure but viability issues will limit their contribution Mayoral MCIL2 to 2038 is significant but will it be enough? Policy D6 B 3) in the NLP states boroughs should phase approved scheme delivery if the required local infrastructure is not in place and that could extend completion dates
Drummond Robson gave a description to the London Planning and Development Forum of his home town, the District Centre of High Barnet, seen through his planning practitioner experience going back for over 50 years
Delivery of new housing slowing In May 2019 Molior reported work on 63,500 approved new private homes in Zone 2 in the first quarter of 2019 was down 97 per cent from the quarterly average in 2015 Grant Thornton UK reported May 2019 that only 54 per cent of the housing schemes for a total of 57,500 homes approved in 2015 had been started. Applications fell in 2018 by 17 per cent on 2017 with only 5,230 affordable homes completed in 2018, down 30 per cent on 2017 Affordable homes given planning permission jumped three fold to 22,277 but SHMA requirement is over 42,000 pa of which 47 per cent are needed as low cost rent type That is 682,000 social and London Affordable Rent by 2041
High dependency on the boroughs The current London Plan has failed to deliver the homes Londoners need The draft replacement New London Plan (NLP) has been a material consideration since December 2017 but has had only a limited positive effect on affordable home deliveries The NLP leaves boroughs to implement its policies and achieve its targets but many Local Plans are out of date The NLP introduces design code requirements for boroughs to implement with resource and skill implications The February 2019 NPPF and the 2020 NLP will require boroughs to change their Local Plans
Opportunity Areas At the New London Plan EiP London Forum challenged the OA minimum indicative numbers for homes and jobs Several of the Opportunity Area Planning Frameworks were compiled up to ten years ago and most have not been validated within the Local Plans of the borough(s) involved The Old Oak Opportunity Area planning had stalled - landowner Car Giant have ‘walked away’. The Earls Court Opportunity Area has failed and LBH&F are considering compulsory purchase The latest of the 48 Areas of Opportunity and Intensification is the Great West Corridor but it has poor public transport
In conclusion Peter asks: What has to happen to get the affordable homes London needs? How do we reduce overcrowding of homes, the growth of inadequate accommodation and tenant exploitation in the Private Rented Sector and the continued increase in temporary home costs? Can London retain the key workers it needs and support its economic growth? How can we create sustainable and walkable communities and reduce the need to travel by car? What kind of Plan for what kind of London do we need when the NLP is replaced? The Panel report is not due until the autumn with a further unknown period for the GLA to respond to it, presumably involving discussion/negotiation with the Department. n
High Barnet is notably an implementation of a full London Regional town centre (one of only six in London) which weathered the OPEC oil crisis in1973-4 . This comprised the realisation of over 1.5 million square feet of shopping, most of onemillion square feet of office space, 1,000 new houses and flats, industrial floorspace in two areas, and diverse amenities. It included partnerships with two pension finds to assemble and acquire the land, much compulsorily, together with separate smaller privately funded developments, and realization of new highways. This formative public sector apprenticeship led on to privately led developments in Birmingham (Brindleyplace), Leeds, a new town in Edinburgh, and many other diverse developments in London and the UK with major international developers and local authorities and communities. The approach adopted is made easier since it is not subject to the popular influence of fashionable development trends of the moment to assess and determine its quality, and what is likely to be enduringly significant. It predated town centre management. Barnet is a place that has been there and learned from for at least seven centuries. The emphasis is therefore towards consideration of a place to live in, work in and enjoy for a sustained period, rather than merely its profitability or public or private sector control.
Infrastructure for new homes
London Planning & Development Forum NEXT MEETING [provisional, please check planninginlondon.com idc] Week of 9th September at City Hall
38
Planning in London
What Seems to Work • Town Centres rely on people choosing to use them. • District Centres with convenient access, accessibility and a range of choice. • They want a quality experience and • Lasting well made quality goods, hard work and personal service. High Barnet is the Highest Town in Greater London. It is a market town in the London Borough of Barnet. It is a diverse suburban development built around a 12th-century settlement and Charter Market established in 1199 by King John at the top of a hill with a great incentive for refreshment after climbing the fairly steep hill (a few on horseback but
High Barnet 2019: A Portrait of a District Town Centre
Identity and Lively Diversity
for most on foot). The First image seeks to capture the hub of the town centre High Street: most intense footfall, at the junction of the original Great North Road with the route to Saint Albans and Holyhead. It also provides a sense of an established place for local people through the historical reference (now on the lampposts) to The Battle of Barnet, where, on the foggy morning of 14th April 1471 Richard Warwick – Earl of Warwick and Warwick the Kingmaker - was slain. This significant event shifted the fortunes of the House of Lancaster and York in favour of the latter and led to the subsequent crowning of Henry V1. Warwick’s coat of arms, shown nearest, indicates his very complex ancestry (from Edward III). The two subsequent images are of the Spires Shopping Centre – entered between the former Methodist churches two towers and the old Courthouse Gardens at the foot of the High Street. Both give purpose and hopefully pleasure to the local resident and visiting shopper. Image 4 – seen in an estate agents window, adds to the identity with more iconography, including a
www.planninginlondon.com
map of the battlefield, and some of the more well known inhabitants such as a blue plaque to the Trollope authors, Antony and his mother Fanny, Sidney Chapman who was a local MP and architect who worked hard for the area (and was a key figure in ensuring that Barnet had a new district general hospital – which would otherwise have gone to Edgware) and a plaque where David Livingstone lived.
BELOW: Image 4
Shopping Characteristics The extract from a recent Peter Brett analysis (SEE table overpage) sets out numerically some key shopping data. There are a large number of service outlets for a wider area although comparison shopping is more restricted – almost certainly attributable to its truncated catchment hinterland fettered by constraints of green belt and the boundary between Barnet and Hertsmere. This Mosaic demographic profile shows the dominance in the area of young well-educated city dwellers, many of whom commute away by public transport from the area into London. The High Street and Managed Shopping Centre. The Spires was developed in 1988 by the Lovell Group on a former military barracks on backland behind the west side of the High Street. Its key anchor trader is Waitrose and recent newcomers are H&M and Carluccios. UBS bank acquired the site for the Spires shopping centre in 2013. It was sold to the Pears Group and is now owned by Alberta Investment Management Company (AIMco), a Canadian Pension and Investment Fund. A recent initiative is to develop part of the site for a Premier Inn. This has conditional planning permission (November 2018) which requires the town centre car park to be open 24 hours. Like many managed centres in the last year, the centre appears to have suffered a significant fall in footfall, seemingly greater than in the High Street itself. The reasons may be conjectured: Rentals I? Business Rates? Service Charges? Unimaginative Management? Too many comparison shops? Not enough Variety/Diversity? Soulless Uniformity? Safe Investments rather than value to the Town Centre? Large unit sizes? A recent addition The High Street itself is influenced more by owners and occupiers of the diverse premises and infrastructure investments by the State and Barnet Council, sometimes in harmony. (Historically the monarch and church or landed estates, and then County and Metropolitan Councils exerted influences - whether carried out or not). Recently The Spires has recast its High Street >>>
Issue 110 July-September 2019
39
BRIEFING | LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM
>>> frontage to attract Carluccios, a recognised Brand for quality and reliable service. However it is now threatened by the convenience Of Deliveroo, Amazon and perhaps Uber Eats for home delivery, with frequent rapid changes of menu from diverse sources. The dilemma is not just for the retailer but also the landowners, who have made a significant investment to attract the well-known retailer, but not markedly increased the footfall as well as both centre and outlet’s usage if customers prefer home delivery. The High Street – like other District Centres - also has another dilemma exemplified by the artisan baker. The High Street still retains its artisan bakery established in 1820 making bread and other confectionary on the premises by artisans who can mix, shape, ferment and bake. Following a pattern by its two outlets in Crouch End and then Wood Green the firm also had an outlet in the Spires until recently, but this was obliged to close, partly influenced no doubt by its proximity to the Waitrose in-house space but also (it is alleged) as the result of a major rent increase by the Spires centre owner. (The unit is to be occupied by another of Barnet’s many pizza chains). It is hard to see how this will increase the centre’s business activity. Former Spires Outlet The Council’s local park nearby (once an orchard) has the contrast of a different coffee and homemade snacks experience in the form of The Old Courthouse Café. This is operated by an innovative local lady providing a personal service (including the planted surroundings) to a growing following of loyal customers. They also offer more event space, whether for a marquee event or bouncy castle. More difficult is to decide whether to provide this solely outside café trading hours to avoid upsetting the local trade or to attract parents wanting a coffee and the bouncy castle to distract the children. The successful planting scheme illustrates starkly another dilemma for the Council as park landlord who have been trying to save money by reducing skilled park maintenance. The result is fewer attractive bedding plants and watering by unskilled itinerant highway maintenance teams The cost implications will be felt over a longer term since they will result in adverse behavioral consequences by visitors to and users of this former manicured parkland. These range from dumping litter, loss of respect for parks and their beauty and design quality which have been maintained by knowledgeable gardeners for centuries, treating the grass areas for kick about space or to walk the dog, soil the paths, use by the neighbouring College who now regrettably have no other recreation space. This should demonstrate that town centres will not be maintained and improved by one-off and cos-
40
Planning in London
metic improvements to satisfy a political or electoral cycle, nor by separate silos of public and private owners and managers. Understanding, regular and sustained hard work and effort are necessary and far more complex to achieve than that. The longer term evolution of the town centre and the lasting implications of its notable historic origins and through the planning acts will be considered another time. n
www.planninginlondon.com
Issue 108 January-March 2019
41
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
ANDREW ROGERS
Are you properly qualified for the job? The RTPI has urged local councils to ensure that their heads of planning sit at a senior level, but if you really want to get ahead in a London borough you will need to be a money person says Andy Rogers At last year’s Planning Convention, the RTPI presented a paper bemoaning the lack of Chief Planners in local authorities, where once the head of a planning department would have been a fullyqualified architect or town planner with a senior position in the hierarchy. The RTPI’s research found that across the country only 23 per cent of the local authorities surveyed had a head of planning reporting directly to the chief executive, while 9% had no top-level individual responsible for planning at all. So what is the current position in the London boroughs? First, it is worth noting that senior appointments seem to change constantly, with promotions and/or retirements moving people around as the structures of executive posts are varied and reimagined. This sometimes makes continuity difficult to achieve and, as the planning world has noted with recent shifts of government planning and housing ministers, leads to a lack of long-term experience. It also means that many department heads are described as “acting” or “interim”. As I argued in an article published last year in the Architects’ Journal, anybody working with development control over many years will know that the best planning department is always one that has a good and experienced leader at its head. And while historically Chief Architects and Planners knew that local planning works much better for housing provision than national policy and is focused on place-making in preference to revenue-raising, today local authority Chief Executives and those running planning departments are very often qualified as accountants, having experience not of planning but in finance, albeit with an emphasis on regeneration. I have listed a few of the positions notified on London borough websites and in the Planning and Environment Reference Guide found at the end of this august publication, which is ever-changing. For example Alice Lester, noted as the Head of Planning, Transport and Licensing in Brent Council and of course a qualified town planner, has already (as readers of The Planner magazine will know) been moved to Regeneration, Growth and Employment; while the listed Director of Planning at the City of Westminster is a telephone number,
www.planninginlondon.com
not a person*. Also I understand that Richmond and Wandsworth have amalgamated many of their services, which possibly makes the definitive responsibility for planning unclear. Ealing Council has a Director of Regeneration & Planning - also listed as (Interim) Director for the Environment, Housing and Regeneration whose qualification is “BA(Hons) in French and Hispanic Studies” and a Chief Executive with key experience as head of policy at the Audit Commission. Paul Najsarek, their Chief Executive, is apparently a financier. Enfield Council has a Head of Planning Policy, an Assistant Director of Planning, Highways and Transportation, a Head of Development Management, a Planning Decisions Manager and a Transport Planning person, at least two of which are qualified Town Planners (not sure about the others). The qualifications of their Chief Executive are not clear. The Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Skills at Greenwich is Pippa Hack, who has a degree from the London School of Economics and Political science, with Assistant Director of Planning Victoria Geoghegan, who qualified in geography and planning at Birmingham. Their Acting Chief Executive is an accountant. The Head of Planning Regeneration at Hammersmith and Fulham is listed as John Finlayson, but he is now (since July 2018) Head of Development Management at the GLA: the website apparently has no named planners in executive posts, but Ieuan Bellis (Team Leader Growth and Place - qualifications unknown) may have taken over from John. The qualifications of Hammersmith and Fulham’s Chief Executive are not known. The Chief Executive of Haringey Council is qualified in Economics, International Politics and Modern History. Lyn Garner is listed as Strategic Director of Regeneration, Planning & Development, but she left in January 2018 to go to the London Legacy Development Corporation. Dan Hawthorn, apparently with a degree in Philosophy and Psychology, is now Director of Housing, Regeneration and Planning. Hounslow Council has a Chief Executive with
degrees/diplomas in Biology, Physical Geography, Town Planning and Public Administration, while the Strategic Director of Housing, Planning and Communities is qualified in Urban and Regional Economics and Planning and their Head of Development Management has an Environmental Planning MA. Is this the exception that proves the rule? Lesley Seary is listed as Chief Executive of Islington Council, but she stepped down in April no replacement at the time of writing. Karen Sullivan (surely a qualified planner and Building Design contributor) is Service Director of Planning and Development and Ashwin Prabhu (no information) is listed as Team Leader for Planning and Projects. The Chief Executive of Southwark Council is Eleanor Kelly, a qualified accountant. Also listed are Deborah Collins, Strategic Director for Environment & Social Regeneration (formerly at HMRC), and Ian Smith, Director of Environment & Leisure, but they both left the Council at the end of 2018: Caroline Bruce will soon replace them but does not have responsibility for planning and there is no indication on the Council website of who does… It is often extremely difficult to pin down the actual qualifications of those in charge of planning in London: many of those listed have comprehensive Linked-In or similar profiles and are clear about their experience and education. But a very significant number do not. I guess the message from my (albeit cursory) research is this: if you really want to get ahead in a London borough, forget about a planning or design qualification - you will need to be an accountant or financier. n * But try Barbara Brownlee, Executive Director of Growth, Planning and Housing?
NOTE Please help us to keep our directory up-to-date by emailing changes to editor@planninginlondon.com with the subject ‘Directory’. You now see how difficult this is!
Issue 110 July-September 2019
43
HOUSING DESIGN QUALITY | MATTHEW CARMONA
Housing design quality – auditing England We can be confident that there will be a considerable variation in quality, and, where there is variation there is potential to learn and to collectively to do much better in the future says Matthew Carmona
The later CABE years (2004 to 2011) witnessed a concerted effort to engage with the volume housebuilding industry in England and a new focus on encouraging and cajoling housebuilders to improve their ‘product’; notably as it effected the external residential environment. At the same time Government was increasingly aware of its responsibility to encourage highways and planning authorities to up their game and move away from the standards dominated and land hungry layouts of much suburban housing development. Forwards or backwards on design? The period since 2011 has seen conflicting, largely anecdotal, accounts over the standard of housing design. Whilst some argue that the lessons of placemaking have not been lost and the design of new external residential environments continue to improve, others see a retrenchment in the gains made during the previous decade. Certainly, through much of this period Government has been less interested in design (although that is certainly changing now), and austerity in local government has led to an exodus of staff in non-statutory or ‘discretionary’ roles, including in urban design. The result seems to be varying practice as regards the empha-
sis placed on design by local authorities, whilst developers (often the same ones) have been able to produce wildly different housing environments, often in neighbouring local authority areas. During this period the housing crisis nationally has placed huge pressure on local authorities and developers to increase rates of housebuilding. At first this led to a downplaying of obstacles seen as ‘bureaucratic’ in the path of new housing development, including the pursuit of better design. The Urban Design Group, for example, have reported that in many county highways authorities there has been a move away from the prescriptions in Manual for Streets back to the old DB32 ‘standards’ with an in-built bias towards the car and acres of tarmac. There has also been a resurgence of the use of standard house types that are repeated from site to site with only minor references to context. Is any of this a problem? The recent national survey of councillors conducted by the Place Alliance revealed that a small majority of local politicians felt there had been a continuing improvement in the design of housing areas, although also a sense that this had come from a low base. At the same time a sizable minority of councillors were disparaging in the extreme, identifying key concerns around the response to local character and the drive for increasing densities across the country as primary concerns.
The seventeen categories of design considerations for audit
Matthew Carmona is professor of planning and urban design at the Bartlett School of Planning, UCL
44
Planning in London
1. Community facilities - Does the development provide (or is it close to) community facilities, such as a school, parks, play areas, shops, pubs or cafés? 2. Housing types - Is there a mix of housing types to meet varied local needs? 3. Public transport - Does the development have easy access to public transport? 4. Environmental impact - Does the development have a low environmental impact? 5. The locality - Is the design specific to the scheme? 6. Existing and new landscape - Does the scheme exploit existing landscape or topography and create a new bio-diverse landscape? 7. Character of the development - Does the scheme feel like a place with a distinctive character? 8. Street legibility - Do the buildings and layout make it easy to find your way around? 9. Street definition - Are streets defined by a well-structured building layout? 10.Highway design - Does the building layout take priority over the road, so that highways do not dominate? 11.Car parking - Is the car parking well integrated and situated, so it supports the street scene? 12.Pedestrian friendly - Are the streets pedestrian and cycle friendly? 13.Connectivity within and with the surroundings developments - Does the street layout connect up internally and integrate with existing streets, paths and surrounding development? 14.Safety and security - Are open spaces, play areas and streets overlooked and do they feel safe? 15.Public, open and play spaces - Is public, open and play spaces well designed and does it have suitable management arrangements in place? 16.Architectural quality - Do the buildings exhibit architectural quality? 17.Storage and bins - Are storage spaces well designed and do they integrate well within the development?
The potential of a second wave of housing audits Frustrated by similarly conflicting views, in 2004 CABE undertook what it termed a ‘housing audit’. This systematically looked at the quality of market housing completed between 2001 and 2003 and covered London, the South East and the East of England. In subsequent years separate audits covering the North East, North West and Yorkshire and Humber, and then the East Midlands, West Midlands and the South West were published, respectively in 2005 and 2006. A separate audit of social housing followed a little later and was published after the withdrawal of public funding from CABE. The audits used the then ‘Building for Life’ (BfL) criteria as the tool to measure quality, a tool that (up to that point) had largely been used to assess the quality of exemplary developments for an award. The first audit showed a generally low occurrence of good or very good design against 16 of BfL’s 20 criteria, including a general dominance of highways at the expense of streets and public space. The audit received immediate national headlines because, as a CABE director later recalled: “the quality of housing in this country was shocking and created a sense of urgency around the problem” (quoted Design Governance, The CABE Experiment). The final audit suggested that fewer than 18 per cent of
www.planninginlondon.com
schemes could be classed as good or very good design, and 29 per cent were so poor that they should not have received planning permission. The reaction of the industry was initially defensive, but the housing audits were quickly taken up by Government, local authorities and others who consistently used them to argue that housing design needed to improve. In time, a number of the larger housebuilders also came publicly on board and permanently and fundamentally switched their approach to design as a result. Others were less keen and tended to resist the campaigning of CABE around the subject. Whilst the housing audits were used alongside other informal tools of design governance (notably advocacy, design review, and campaigning) to achieve their ultimate end of better residential design, they are generally regarded to have been one of the most effective tools in CABE’s armoury. Indeed, if CABE had retained its Government funding, it had planned to re-run the audits starting in 2011. As things stand there has been no systematic housing design audit work in over decade.
ABOVE:: Variations on the ‘Edale’, a two bedroom home from a volume housebuilder – in Truro, Bridgewater and Norwich
BELOW:: Same developer, two different local authorities with hugely varying expectations on design
A new climate and a new audit Whist austerity remains a fact of life within local government, >>>
Issue 110 July-September 2019
45
HOUSING DESIGN QUALITY | MATTHEW CARMONA
>>> recently there has been a strong resurgence of interest amongst Government and its agencies (notably Homes England) in the importance of design quality. Amongst other reasons, this seems to have been driven by a concern amongst politicians that communities around the country will continue to resist much needed housing development unless the quality of design radically improves – the old familiar refrain of ‘concreting over the countryside’ is never far away. The time is now right to systematically gauge the state of the nation as regards the quality of housing design through a new programme of housing audit. Gone are the days when the Government (via CABE) could spend £100,000+ to commission an audit. Instead, the Place Alliance in partnership with the CPRE has harnessed the support of a diverse alliance of organisations to support a new audit, including: the Home Builders Federation, Urban Design Group, Civic Voice, Academy of Urbanism, Design Council, UK Green Building Council, and Institute for Highways and Transportation. The work is underpinned by professional input from Arup, JTP, Spawforths and URBED and a network of specially trained volunteers across the country. Using broadly the same methodology as the earlier regional housing audits conducted by CABE, the intention is to look back and see how the design of housing developments has changed over the last decade, to gauge where we are now – what we are doing right and what we are doing wrong and how that varies across the country, and to establish a new baseline against which to measure progress on place-making in new housing development going forward. RIGHT: Cordoned off is the next field about to be developed... RIGHT ABOVE: ...whilst the last field – ‘Miller’s Field’ – is now tarmacked rather than concreted over
46
Planning in London
A rigorous approach If anything, the ambition this time around is even greater than before. The plan is to cover the whole country (England) with a single audit and to evaluate enough schemes (a minimum of 100) in order that meaningful regional comparisons can be made. The eventual numbers or projects will also reflect differential regional outputs with more schemes audited in London and the South East to reflect their higher outputs. Schemes have been selected in order to reflect the ‘typical’ volume housebuilder product. This means that schemes from the top ten (by volume) housebuilders in each region have been selected and the top and bottom 10 per cent of schemes (by value) have been omitted. Within these parameters, schemes have been chosen randomly from online sources and with some clustering to ensure efficient auditing by volunteers. For each development, 17 categories of design considerations will be audited, with each expressed, first as a question, and second as a series of more detailed sub-criteria in order to help auditors make a reasoned and balanced judgement against design considerations. The design categories are broadly the same as the previous audits, although have been edited and updated to reflect changes to practice and expectations since the original audits. n
The ‘Reimagining Spaces’ edition
Welcome to Momentum’s Connect, where we focus on how good design can reimagine spaces for people. It may come as a surprise to hear a group of engineers and transport planners talk about the work they do as ‘design’. But design, and speci昀cally, urban design is an integral and essential part of everything we do. Urban design focuses on the design of the physical features of the places where people live and work. Where architects focus on individual buildings, urban designers plan for the municipal services, streets and public spaces in between them. Put simply it is about connecting people and spaces. We understand the challenges cities and towns face as spaces grow and become more dense. Led by thorough research and our analytic capabilities, our team provides insights and forensic studies that illustrate how both cities and citizens are increasingly becoming more interdependent. We understand that urban design is not just the study of complex spaces and how they are used, but also the challenge of how to interweave elements which make spaces desirable, and how this can add value to the communities we work in. In this special issue of Connect, we take a look at how analysis powers design; smaller, local interventions; the role over-station developments are playing in how we perceive traditional and conventional methods of construction; and the new policies driving our design work. Our in-depth feature looks at how one of the main spaces in our Hatton Garden home could be re-imagined.
Keep in touch www.momentum-transport.com LinkedIn: Momentum Transport Consultancy Instagram: momentum_transport Twitter: @Momentum_TC_Ltd
http://bit.do/eZB9d
www.planninginlondon.com
ADVERTISING FEATURE
Issue 110 July-September 2019
!"
#$%&'(%)%)(*+,'-$+.*/'001)*2'34$)
:;1<$.*/'001)*2'34$)*=%00$3$4*>%07*-'3+
5)64$,07*8$'093$
#$%&'(%)%)(*+,'-$+.* /'001)*2'34$) 48
#$%&'()&*$%&'+,-.&/+0%1"&2)&3%1456
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�.)*#)*"# 8$))+'#9$%-"'#:;<1#0*.2*#*$(#)*"#$.=#)+#(466+%)# >4(.'"((#5%+0)*#$'-#(""#8$))+'#9$%-"'#5%+0## $(#$#0+%,-?%"'+0'"-#>4(.'"((#$'-#@.(.)+%## -"().'$).+'7
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昀ndings to coincide with Clerkenwell <"(.5'#!""&1#$'-#)+#6%+-42"#$#(")#+I#>%$'-# '"0#@.(4$,.($).+'(#0*.2*#(*+0#*+0#)*"#=$.'# ()%"")#U#$,(+#'$="-#8$))+'#9$%-"'#U#2+4,-#>"# .=6%+@"-#>3#5++-#4%>$'#-"(.5'7
:$2&#.'#ABCD#0"#0+%&"-#0.)*#E%>"'## F00074%>"'()4-.+72+=G#$'-#:"'"-")).#H%2*.)"2)(# F0007>"'"-")).$%2*.)"2)(72+=G#)+#2+=6,")"#$# %"("$%2*#()4-3#$'-#-"@",+6#$#I%$="0+%&#I+%# I4)4%"#64>,.2#%"$,=#.')"%@"').+'(#.'#)*"#8$))+'# 9$%-"'#-.()%.2)7
!"
9%@*M&N)?-%&F(,G465&(*&?(F(?4*) O45$*M&H,?$4*%?*=,(-&5%/1&'4*$46&*$%&8(,.%6
49
!"
#$%&'(%)%)(*+,'-$+.*/01$2$3*45*')'65+%+
&++*$0 !+&$5&,;
)+ ', *)% ';
$"
+ #+ *; ', %% "#
!"
% ,*) -$' )#-
)# *" ', --$ .++
+*+,
+
0&, ,*/#$ "#%%'
%1'' 1 '$
,*1 %%' "#
%%' "#
%"
#++ ,*;
+&#% ,
))*)%
, /0'
' )%3*!$
$$., *9*-# #<8=
"&$*+
#"
*$0
)# *" ', --$ .++
#$ 0 )*/
&, )
)% 5.$64*
0;.,
+&#%
,*/#$ "#%%'
6#+
&'(()*+,-*. $/'/)-*
% ))*) $' ,! !'
0&,
, "&$*+
!"
!"
%',*)% 0'$$.,/
% .++&*) /$&2
!" )#-
!"
.++
6+&&0.,/*"&#$%*4#$0
*$ /0', -#$$.,
,*" -$'
#:1*)% 6&#(!"
0
&+4*1+
,*/#$ "#%%' 0&,
$"
#78*9*"' +6
'$,
01'*23(4. 5'*3
National Rail
No Entry Sign
Loading
Trader
Underground
Banned Turn Sign
Business
Suspended Bay
Extent of Survey
Car Club
Paid For
Bollards
Disabled (Blue Badge)
Resident Permit
No Vehicle Access
Disabled (Blue Badge)
Solo Motorcycle
=$24+%3$*')3*>'2*,'2?%)(*')'65+%+"* @:$*'40A$*&',*+:01-'+$+*'*2$A%$1*0;*9:$*?$24+%3$*'22')($&$)9** ')3*,'2?%)(*3$&')3*0;*B'990)*C'23$)*1$*-0)3<-9$3*90*:$6,*,20A%3$*')** ')'659%-'6*4'+%+*;02*,20,0+$3*,<46%-*2$'6&*%)9$2A$)9%0)+*D$"("*,'2?6$9+E"
50
#78*9*" '+6' $,*2.# 0(!%
% /0',*) -#$$.,
#$%&'(%)%)(*+,'-$+.* /01$2$3*45*')'65+%+
% &*) () "' &$ $% # !"
)"'&*+,
+&#%"&$*+,
7)83$,9:*;$'9<2$
;.&-3*7-).&-30'1%-<0=&("->7-?&(+,$
#$%&'()*$%+$,-).&-/0)&$)+*1-*-(/*2&-.*(-*$%.03-+)-2041%-5&-5&()-4(&%-+$-).&-64)4'&-+(-'&1+*$)-0$*-(01+%-604$%*)+0$-06-%*)*2011&2)+0$-*$%-*$*17(+(8*10$,(+%&-*$-+$9%&/).-4$%&'()*$%+$,-06-).&-/1*$$+$,-20$)&:)" !"#$%#&'()&*&*)$+,$(*-$./(0#$.1(%1.$2-$ analysing the signi昀cant policies which will $ #*0+3%()#4$+%$.+'#1&'#.$&'/#5#4$/%+/+.#5$ 0"(*)#4$.30"$(.$1"+.#$.#1$+31$2-$1"#$6+0(6$ 2+%+3)"$7&*$8(11+*$9(%5#*:.$0(.#4$1"#$;+*5+*$ <+%+3)"$+,$=('5#*>4$1"#$9;?$(*5$*(1&+*(6$$ )+@#%*'#*1A$ !"#$/%+0#..$+,$0+66#01&*)$B$(*5$1"#*$(*(6-.&*)$B$ 5(1($1+$&*,+%'$%#0+''#*5(1&+*.$0(*$1"#*$$ )#1$3*5#%C(-A$?1$1"&.$.1()#4$C#$.##D$1+$$ 3*5#%.1(*5$C"(1$5+#.*:1$C+%D4$(*5$C"-4$(.$ C#66$(.$1"#$/+.&1&@#.$C"&0"$0(*$2#$23&61$3/+*$&*$ +%5#%$1+$/%+/+.#$($.#1$+,$.+631&+*.$1"(1$'##1$+3%$ 06&#*1.:$*##5.$(*5$235)#1.A
?4'+$,-04'-30'@-3+).-A*))0$-B*'%&$->C?-3&-20</1&)&%-1*$%-4(&-*$*17(+(8-*2)+=+)7-<*//+$,8-/.0)0,'*/.+2-*((&((<&$)8-/&%&()'+*$-*$%-=&.+21&-<0=&<&$)-()4%+&(-*$%-D4$2)+0$-*((&((<&$)(-)0-%&6+$&-04'-'&20<<&$%*)+0$("
H.*)-%+%-04'-6+$%+$,(-(.03I
&*,%(.1%3013%#E$(*5$"+C$/#5#.1%&(*$*(@&)(1&+*$&.$ aided by way昀nding signage.
!"#$5&@#%.&1-$+,$6(*5$3.#$&.$($.1%#*)1"$(*5$$ &1$."+365$2#$3.#5$1+$'(F&'3'$(5@(*1()#A$ L//+%13*&1&#.$1+$#F1#*5$1"#$+/#%(1&*)$5(-$$ (*5$C##D$."+365$2#$#F/6+%#5A$
J*)-'4$$+$,
?.$1"#$./&*#$+,$($)%&5$+,$*+%1"G.+31"$.1%##1.$$ 6(&5$+31$&*$1"#$HI1"$0#*13%-4$8(11+*$9(%5#*$ (01.$(.$($1"%+3)"$%+31#A$J*$/(%1&036(%$+3%$ @#"&06#$'+@#'#*1$(*(6-.&.$."+C#5$1"(1$.+'#$ '+1+%&.1.$C#%#$6&D#6-$3.&*)$8(11+*$9(%5#*$(.$($ ‘rat run’. We 昀rmly believe this doesn’t need to 2#$1"#$0(.#A$8(11+*$9(%5#*$&.$.3%%+3*5#5$2-$ (%1#%&(6$%+31#.$C"&0"$"(@#$($06#(%$,3*01&+*K$1+$ E&%&()'+*$-(4'=&7(!+$."+C$1"#$@+63'#.$+,$/#5#.1%&(*.E$(%#(.$C"&0"$ '+@#$($6(%)#$*3'2#%$+,$@#"&06#.$1"%+3)"$1"#$ (%#$23.-$+%$3*5#%3.#5E$"+C$#,,#01&@#$%+31#.$&*1+$ area as ef昀ciently as possible. (*5$+31$+,$1"#$(%#($(%#E$.&)"1$6&*#.$(*5$/#5#.1%&(*$ 5#.&%#$6&*#.$(*5$"+C$1"#-$(%#$&'/(01#5$2-$#F&.1&*)$ K:)&$%&%-'&)*+1-0//0')4$+)+&(
F&.+21&-<0=&<&$)-*$*17(+( !+$3*5#%.1(*5$#F&.1&*)$@#"&06#$'+@#'#*1.$$ and traf昀c management measures and controls. G*$%-4(&-()4%7 !+$#*.3%#$1"#$03%%#*1$(*5$,313%#$*##5.$+,$$ 23.&*#..$%#.&5#*1.$(%#$3*5#%.1++5$(*5$'#1A E.0)0,'*/.+2-*((&((<&$) To take a closer look at speci昀c issues $ &*0635&*)$0-06#$(*5$'+1+%$@#"&06#$/(%D&*)4$$ C(.1#$'(*()#'#*14$.#%@&0&*)4$.&)*()#4$$ .1%##1$06311#%4$.1(1#$+,$%#/(&%4$/(%D&*)$(*5$(*-$ unde昀ned spaces.
E&%&()'+*$(-*$%-2721+()(-*'&-,'03+$,-+$-$4<5&'-54)-).&'&-+(-()+11-*-%+(/'0/0')+0$*)&-*<04$)-06-(/*2&-,+=&$-0=&'-)0-<0)0'-=&.+21&("-H+).-).&-64)4'&-*''+=*1-06-L'0(('*+18-/&%&()'+*$-$4<5&'(*'&-(&)-)0-,'03-&=&$-<0'&" E*((+$,-).'04,."""
A signi昀cant number of cyclists were $ +2.#%@#5$1+$3.#$8(11+*$9(%5#*$.+31"2+3*5$ C$)&'=+&3-(4'=&7(&*$1"#$'+%*&*)$(*5$*+%1"2+3*5$&*$1"#$#@#*&*)4$ .3))#.1&*)$&1$&.$($/+/36(%$0+''31&*)$%+31#$,+%$ !+$#*.3%#$1"#$@&#C.$+,$23.&*#..#.4$%#.&5#*1.$$ cyclists. The total volume of traf昀c experienced (*5$+1"#%$D#-$.1(D#"+65#%.$(%#$0(/13%#5$&*$1"#$ ,+%'36(1&+*$+,$/326&0$%#(6'$&'/%+@#'#*1$.+631&+*.A (6+*)$8(11+*$9(%5#*$&.$0+*.&5#%#5$1+$2#$6+C$ 1"%+3)"+31$1"#$5(-A$M&1"$1"&.$&*$'&*54$(6+*).&5#$ 1"#$/+1#*1&(6$'&.3.#$2-$%(1$%3**&*)$@#"&06#.4$ there is de昀nite scope to consider restricting some of the two-way traf昀c on the road. NF0#..&@#$+*G.1%##1$0(%$/(%D&*)4$($6(0D$$ +,$0-06#$/(%D&*)$(*5$*+C"#%#$1+$.&1$(*5$%#.1$ '#(*$1"(1$8(11+*$9(%5#*$&.$($/6(0#$-+3$$ /(..$1"%+3)"4$231$5+$*+1$./#*5$1&'#$&*A$$ ?.$1"#$/%&'(%-$O#C#66#%-G%#1(&6$%+(5$&*$1"#$$ (%#(4$&*0%#(.&*)$5C#66$1&'#$"#%#$C+365$06#(%6-$ bene昀t businesses.
L0$)&:)-06-A*))0$-B*'%&$-3+).+$-).&-3+%&'-*'&*"
!"
H.*)-+(-24''&$)17-*$-4$*))'*2)+=&8)'*66+296+11&%-'0*%-.*(-).&-/0)&$)+*1)0-5&20<&-*-=+5'*$)-()'&&)-6+11&%3+).-*2)+=+)7"
51
!"
?'29$62/2/6)1=$%'18)@4$.42/6)7245)$)1&'4%5
#$%&'()*+),-.)$/$0+1213),-.)45,-6541)/,7)4-./)4,)('126/8)$00,72/6)-1)4,) 9$&').'%,99'/($42,/1):,.)15,.43)9'(2-9)$/()0,/6;4'.9)2/4'.<'/42,/1) $/(3)75'.')=,112*0'3)4'9=,.$.+)4.2$01),.)>-2%&)72/1)752%5)%$/)*')$)6.'$4) 7$+)4,)4.2$0).'%,99'/($42,/1)*':,.'):-00)29=0'9'/4$42,/)$/()5'0=)1'%-.') :-/(2/6") A')$01,)*'62/)4,)<21-$021')5,7)45') .'29$62/'()1=$%')%,-0()0,,&3)$/) 'B'.%21')752%5)5'0=1),-.)%02'/41)4,) =2%4-.')45')%5$/6'1)*':,.')45'+)$.') 9$(')$/()752%5)%$/)$01,)*')-1'() 4,)'/6$6')7245)45')0,%$0)%,99-/24+" C,%-12/6),/)D$44,/)E$.('/3)7')1'4) ,-4)4,)<21-$021')45')29=.,<'9'/41) 752%5)%,-0()*')$%52'<'()2:)24)7'.')4,) '<,0<'):.,9)*'2/6)$)45.,-65).,-4') 4,)$)('142/$42,/)2/)241),7/).2654"
G/;('=45):'$4-.'
?'29$62/2/6)) 1=$%'18) @4$.42/6)7245)) $)1&'4%5)
?'%,99'/($42,/)H
G/;5,-1')5$/()1&'4%5).'/('.),:)=$.&0'4)%,/%'=4
F<,0<')D$44,/)E$.('/):.,9)$)45.,-65).,-4')4,)) $)('142/$42,/)2/)241),7/).2654
G:)D$44,/)E$.('/)21)4,)15$&'),::)241)29$6') $1)$)45.,-65).,-4'3)7')*'02'<')45$4)47,) 0$/'1),:)4.$::2%)21)-//'%'11$.+")?'(-%2/6) 45')=.,<212,/)4,),/')0$/'),:)4.$::2%)7,-0() 0'$()4,)$)/-9*'.),:)*'/':241") The dominance of motor trafć˜€c (which would instead use !"##$"%&'%()*#+,#'*-)#$"+,!.)/$"-&)0,)#,&"1,&)/2'-!+)!+'--) 3#$4'&'%()+2,)!3*1,)5$#),!!,%+'*-)!,#4'1'%()*%&)&,-'4,#',!) +$)+*6,)3-*1,7 83*1,)/$"-&)0,)5#,,&)"3)+$)'%1#,*!,)5$$+/*9)/'&+2!)*%&) 3#$4'&,)!,*+'%()*%&)+#,,!):);*6'%()*)3-*1,)/2,#,)3,$3-,) 1*%)!'+<)/*-6)*%&),%=$9)+2,)*#,*<)*%&)';3$#+*%+-9)!+$3)+$) +*6,)*)-$$6)*+)+2,)#,+*'-)$55,#'%(7 >,1,%+)?5@)#,!,*#12A)!2$/!)+2*+);*6'%()/*-6'%()*%&)) 191-'%()';3#$4,;,%+!)+$)*%)*#,*)1*%)'%1#,*!,)#,+*'-) !3,%&)09)"3)+$)BCD7
52
3%7-8**%,465&*$%&1*,%%*
3%7-8**%,465&/()&9%&(&78,,%6*&& 98::'+,.&98*&,%/+0465&1%,047%1& '$47$&(,%6;*&,%<84,%.&+,&(,%&& 86.%,81%.&7(6&=,%%&8>&1>(7%&*+& /(?%&7+614.%,(9-%&4/>,+0%/%6*1"
! Parking is always a dif昀cult and controversial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collection and storage would bene昀t Hatton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
V6W$+81%&(,*41*47&0%7*+,&,%6.%,&+ =8--)W>%.%1*,4(641%.&7+67%>
@,%(*465&*$%&A(,.%6
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
!"
K%7+//%6.(*4+6&U
K%7+//%6.(*4+6&P
#$%&'()&*$%&'+,-.&/+0%1"&2)&3%1456
http://content.tf.gov.uk/walking-cycling-economic-bene昀ts-summary-pack.pdf !K37!F%04!8!D"6%!=%-2%%7!=$"4."7;#!A+L,+B !0--9NOO.%9-#&23#0"7;-17&%.$O002=OP0?QR<171?"<#&0-?4
53
!"
#$%&'(%)%)(*+,'-$+.*/'0%)(*1'223)*4'56$)*27$*8$9$:*%)*27$*-539)*3;*<:$50$)9$::
=)>73?+$*,7323>&3)2'($*5$)6$5*@%+?':%+%)(*'*,3++%A:$*-3)-$,2** ')6*5$-3&&$)6'2%3)*;35*1'223)*4'56$)
54
7%4/(546465&18(9%1:& ;(<465&=(**+6&>(,.%6& *$%&?%'%-&46&*$%&9,+'6& +@&A-%,<%6'%--
!"
#$%&'()&*$%&'+,-.&/+0%1"&2)&3%1456
55
!"# $%&''()*+,#*-./(0*1%.2(%
3/2%45&)6*47%*)(&68+47%84490*:&'8*;4<.;*9(0&6)*&)'(%5()'&4)0
=%'&<;(*!
3/2%45&)6*47%*** )(&68+47%84490*:&'8*;4<.;** 9(0&6)*&)'(%5()'&4)0 >?/47'8*@.%A('B*C4)94)B*>DE!
56
#$%&'()&*$%&'+,-.&/+0%1"&2)&3%1456
76&8+0%/9%,&:;!<&*$%&=()+,&+>&?+6.+6&& (6.&#,(61@+,*&>+,&?+6.+6&A#>?B&(66+C6D%.&& *$%&'466%,1&+>&*$%&>4,1*&,+C6.&+>&(&EFF&/4--4+6& >C6.465&@,+5,(//%&D(--%.&& G?40%(9-%&8%45$9+C,$++.1H"&
#$%&>4,1*&,+C6.&+>&-+D(*4+61&46D-C.%.& $45$&1*,%%*1&(6.&,%54+6(-&D%6*,%1&46& (--&/(66%,&+>&(,%(1&(D,+11&I,%(*%,& ?+6.+6J&46D-C.465&K%1*&L(-465J& I,%%6'4D$&*+'6&D%6*,%J&M,+CD$& L6.&(6.&N+/>+,.&*+'6&D%6*,%J& (-+6514.%&1%0%,(-&+*$%,1"&
2C*&'$)O
#$%&1%D+6.&,+C6.
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fourish. The statistics on this don’t lie – through 1#-#'.%*&)E/(50''#-$*).#%4#).*()'$F%(23#9$$ #:1#%*#)5#-$&$GHA$*)5%#&'#$*)$>&38*)+$>"*5"$ -*%#5.39$%#'03.#-$*)$&$IJKA$*)5%#&'#$*)$&5.*4*.9$$ ()$*.'$"*+"$'.%##.;$
!"#$'#5()-E%(0)-$>*))#%'$(/$."#$I@JRSJG$ ,*--*)+$1%(5#''$>#%#$%#5#).39$&))(0)5#-$*)$ Q&%5"$I@JG;$!"*'$*)530-#-$&$13#."(%&$(/$"*+"$ '.%##.'$&)-$.(>)$5#).%#'$&'$>#33$&'$T"(%.3&)-'$ in Bromley, En昀eld town centre and the Atlantic <(&-$*)$F%*:.()U$,0.$&3'(6$."#$V*.9$V30'.#%$$ >*."*)$."#$V*.9$(/$=()-();$!"*'$'"(>'$."#$$ Q&9(%P'$&)-$!/=P'$5(22*.2#).'$.($/&5*3*.&.*)+$ &5.*4#$.%&4#3$>*."*)$&$4&%*#.9$(/$'1&5#';$$ !"*'$9#&%$&3'($'&>$&)$*)5%#&'#$*)$/0)-*)+$$ 5(22*.2#).$.($WXH$2*33*()6$,#*)+$&$1('*.*4#$ '.#1$/(%$2&8*)+$."#'#$'1&5#'$205"$2(%#$ >#35(2*)+$&)-$'0'.&*)&,3#;$
Why else do high streets fourish when walking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
!"#$/0)-*)+$2#5"&)*'2'$&%#$.($'011(%.$$ 昀ve-year projects, in order for the funded 1%(N#5.'$.($,#$'0'.&*)&,39$*213#2#).#-$&)-$.($ .&8#$*).($&55(0).$."#$)##-'$(/$#4#%9,(-9$>"($ will use them. Presently the 昀rst-round winners >*33$,#$0)-#%.&8*)+$#:.#)'*4#$5(220)*.9$ #)+&+#2#).$&5.*4*.*#'$*)$(%-#%$.($1%(2(.#$."#$ 1%(N#5.'$.($%#'*-#).'$&)-$,0'*)#''$(1#%&.(%';$ T0,'#70#).39$*.P'$#)4*'&+#-$."&.$."#$-#'*+)$ (/$#&5"$1%(N#5.$>*33$,#$-#.#%2*)#-$."%(0+"$."#$ ."(0+".'$&)-$4*#>'$(/$."#'#$'.&8#"(3-#%';$$ Y#$&.$Q(2#).02$&%#$4#%9$205"$3((8*)+$$ /(%>&%-$.($'##*)+$>"#%#$#&5"$1%(N#5.$>*33$$ "#&-$)#:.Z
!!"
P-+C,41$465&$45$&1*,%%*1
Q+&'$(*H1&$(@@%6465&,45$*&6+'O
57
!"#
$%&'(D*+*,-.(O&%&0-12&.*)
L',**&.(6@#(M0+9/,-(N-')+',
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in Southwark (to be 昀nanced by the development ,+<")($&'$)"#$-*'3$0,##3$0,&4$,*+-.*/$7+*31%)(:$ *'3$+'$)"#$=>+<")$*)$)"#$#'3$&0$)"#$)1''#-?$,#9&,)$ 0,&4$)"#$@,&(($A+7#,$B*,)'#,("+9$+'$CDDE2$."+%"$ *')+%+9*)#3$)"#$1(#$&0$,*+-.*/$*,%"#($*($%1,,#')-/$ 91,(1#3$5/$F#).&,6$A*+-2$!0>2$-&%*-$*1)"&,+)+#(2$ 3#7#-&9#,($*'3$GHI(;$ >*,<#J(%*-#$,#<#'#,*)+&'$(%"#4#($*%,&(($$ >&'3&'2$0,&4$K+'<L($@,&(($)&$M-3$M*6$@&44&'$ *,#$*-(&$9-*/+'<$*$9*,)$+'$&7#,%&4+'<$)"#$+((1#($ &0$+'0,*(),1%)1,#$(#7#,*'%#;
P'*,;0&("#
$%&'()*+*,-.(( /&%&0-12&.*) 58
!"#"$%&'(%)'")#$&*'#&+',-#&.*'/$"0'(1&$21-#)*'#&+'' .-.3#"%)*'%3.)'"0)..')%#+'-.3.-*'45'67'!#&"89-$#'' :#4%3.;'<=<>?'#&+'"0.'@!A5'B%/.)C'45'D$2A#)+'E0$-"%&' #&+'6)1,'(%)'"0.'F4.)'9-.3#".'@!A5,%)"C'2%G,."$"$%&'' :4.-%/;'HI<=?
86%-<1?-,6%-<(.'2-*(&%/#-V?-$%/74+
$%&%'()*%+,-).%//0.%/-1+2-3024%,50,/-1.%-)0/67+4-89:-1+2-;%,<(.=>17'-,(<1.2/-1-.17'-1+2-).()%.,?*(2%'-/7*7'1.-,(-@(+4-A(+4B/-C1//8.1+/7,->17'<1?-DC8>EF-<7,6-1-9(50/(+-(&%.G-1+2-+%1.G.17'-2%&%'()*%+,#H55(.27+4-,(-,6%-I2%1/-H3(&%-J(0.K,1,7(+-.%)(.,-DK%),%*3%.-LM!NE3?-,6%-O%+,.%-9(.-:(+2(+F-,67/1)).(156-5(0'2-2%'7&%.-0)-,(-!PFMMM6(*%/-7+-,6%-+%Q,-9%<-?%1./# !"0*$0*$&($054,-.&(.$%,(*03#-&.0,($+,-$.-&(*4,-.$ &(3$%,((#%.0/0.2@$9#%E0()$,/#-$-&0'?&2*$$ &(3$&**,%0&.#3$0(+-&*.-;%.;-#$%-#&.#*$&$(#?$ “arti昀cial” ground level, which requires great care 0($3#/#',40()$&..-&%.0/#$%,((#%.0,(*$.,$#=0*.0()$ %,55;(0.0#*>$3#'0/#-0()$+,,.+&''$&(3$&%.0/0.0#*$.,$ ."#$(#?$)-,;(3$'#/#'$?"0'*.$1'#(30()$."#$(#?$ 3#/#',45#(.$0(.,$."#$#=0*.0()$;-1&($+&1-0%>$&(3$ extending the bene昀ts of regeneration to existing %,55;(0.0#*@$Q.$."#$*&5#$.05#K$."#$4-#*#(%#$,+$ 0(+-&*.-;%.;-#$5&E#*$0.$054,**01'#$.,$',%&.#$?&*.#$ *.,-&)#K$*#-/0%#$2&-3K$%2%'#$&(3$%&-$4&-E0()$ ;(3#-$1;0'30()*>$+&%0'0.0#*$."#-#+,-#$(##3$.,$1#$ located at ground foor, as in the example of $ 21 Moor昀elds*.
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
:(51,%2-1'*(/,-%+,7.%'?-13(&%-,6%)'1,9(.*/-(9-C((.41,%-0+2%.4.(0+2-/,1,7(+F-:1+2/%5B/-.%2%&%'()*%+,(9-L!-C((.97%'2/-2%*1+2%2-,6%*(/,-5.%1,7&%-1+2-5(''13(.1,7&%2%/74+G,%1*-1)).(156-,(-/('&%-7,/5(+/,.05,7(+-561''%+4%/#-C(*%+,0*1//7/,%2-<(.'2G.%+(<+%2-1.567,%5,/F-R7'=7+/(+S?.%F-<7,6-,6%-5.%1,7(+-(9).()(/1'/-9(.-1-6746GT01'7,?F-!UG/,(.%?-5(**%.571'-(9975%-/56%*%# !"#$'&%E$,+$&(2$1#',?$)-,;(3J'#/#'$1&*#5#(.$$ at 21 Moor昀elds means that all deliveries and $ servicing take place at ground-foor level, with $ 4;1'0%'2J&%%#**01'#$*4&%#$4-,/03#3$&1,/#K$$ %,((#%.0()$0(.,$."#$L&-10%&($F0)"?&'E@$ M,5#(.;5$3#/0*#3$&$1#*4,E#$*#-/0%0()$$ *.-&.#)2$.&E0()$0(.,$&%%,;(.$."#$3#5&(3*$$ ,+$,."#-$(#&-12$1;0'30()*$&(3$."#$L&-10%&(N*$$ OKPPP$-#*03#(.*@$!"#$*.-&.#)2$#(*;-#3$."&.$."#$ (;51#-$,+$',&30()$1&2*$%,;'3$&%%,55,3&.#$."#$ demands of the building users and that suf昀cient ?&*.#$5&(&)#5#(.$+&%0'0.0#*$?#-#$4-,/03#3@$$ M,5#(.;5N*$?,-E$#(&1'#3$',)0*.0%J-#'&.#3$$ 30*-;4.0,($.,$1#$50(050*#3$*,$."&.$*.-##.J'#/#'$$ &%.0/0.2$?,;'3$1#$4-,5,.#3K$-&."#-$."&($"0(3#-#3K$ 12$."#$(#?$3#/#',45#(.@
!"#
L!-C((.97%'2/
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
!"#$%&'()&*()&+$($),-&."/"0,12"-$&3,-4"1$&56,-7&8,-79& :)7;$%&+;)<=>(&+$($),-&?+.&5',@>,%&A(1(-9
59
!"# $%&''()*+,#*-.'./&(*0/1,2
3(4&5)&)5*+,*61/&7,
8/'%.*/19*(:&44&1)*;1)(*<80=>?*+1@)2.%,*61&)'*1)*=@4'1)*A1.2#
60
L7%*:8,*37%*:.2/9*=.M%&#*N,*$%&'()
5607*78&*78--%)%9*')*37%* $%&'()')(*J%8/37,*K32%%3& S+%"'!-/,!2$(*!+((/'!-0!>-%%'"*@!5'!#$?'!! also completed our 昀rst ‘Healthy Streets’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from those we have previously 9%&'()*')*37'&*%9'3'.)C*:%* signi昀cantly (/)7+**'.!*-!2-"$2!$/*#-,+*+'(!$%.!H04@!5+*#!-%'! 7$W-,!"#$%&'!)'+%&!*#'!,'E/+,'7'%*!*-!$(('((! 38<%*8*/..<*83*372%%*<%,* a larger area around developments, speci昀cally ),-$.'%+%&!*#'!$(('((7'%*!*-!,'?+'5!$%!;"*+?'! -'%0%&*.;*-./'0,*8)9*7.:* H,$?'2!8-%'@!5#+"#!+(!$!BC37+%/*'!"F"2'!$,-/%.! *#'!(+*'=!H#+(!5+22!'%$)2'!7-,'!#-2+(*+"!! 37%,*(6'9%*.62*9%&'()# Arguably the most high-pro昀le of these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condemned as not 昀t for human consumption,”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more ef昀cient and fexible back of house ! (<$"'(@!7'$%+%&!&,'$*',!$"*+?$*+-%!-0!*#'!! ground foor and ultimately more space ! 0-,!<'-<2'=!!
123'0/%*4#
;(!>-%%'"*!&-'(!*-!<,'((@!5'!#$?'!$2(-!)''%! ,'?+'5+%&!*#'!>'%*,'!0-,!4-%.-%G(!J-$.!1(',! >#$,&+%&!S*/.FM!NL,''%!2+&#*M!%'A*!&'%',$*+-%! ,-$.!/(',!"#$,&+%&!0-,!$!#'$2*#+',@!7-,'!2+?'$)2'! 4-%.-%T=!4$/%"#'.!$*!*#'!'%.!-0!;<,+2@!5'G,'! '%"-/,$&'.!*-!(''!*#'!7$%F!<-(+*+?'!+.'$(!! )'+%&!),-/&#*!0-,5$,.!*-!,'<2$"'!N*#'!&,-5+%&!! <$*"#5-,P!-0!,-$.!"#$,&'(!5+*#!$!0$+,',@!! simpler and smarter single digital platform”*.
$%&'()')(* +,*-./'0,
$(('((7'%*(!$%.!5'G,'!2--P+%&!0-,5$,.!*-! 5-,P+%&!5+*#!-/,!"2+'%*(!+%!*#'!"-7+%&!5''P(! *-!/%.',(*$%.!7-,'!$)-/*!5#$*!*#'!%'5!H;! 5+22!7'$%!0-,!*#'7@!*#'!("-<'!-0!*#'!*,$%(<-,*! +7<,-?'7'%*(!*#'F!5+22!)'!'A<'"*'.!*-!7$P'! $,-/%.!*#'+,!(+*'(!$%.!#-5!5'!"$%!#'2<!*#'7!! *-!%$?+&$*'!*#'!"#$%&'(=! D..<')(*87%89
4--P+%&!0/,*#',!$#'$.!5'!$5$+*!*#'!</)2+"$*+-%! -0!*#'!%'5!4-%.-%!X2$%@!0-22-5+%&!+*(!-%&-+%&! 6A$7+%$*+-%!+%!X/)2+"@!5#+"#!5+22!"-7<,+('!! <$,*!-0!*#'!(*$*/*-,F!.'?'2-<7'%*!<2$%!0-,! L,'$*',!4-%.-%=!Y'!#$?'!)''%!(*,/"P!)F!#-5! '$"#!+*',$*+-%!-0!*#'!<2$%!#$(!+%",'$('.!*#'! ,'E/+,'7'%*(!-%!*#'!%/7)',!-0!"F"2'!<$,P+%&! (<$"'(!,'E/+,'.!)F!.'?'2-<7'%*(!9"/,,'%*2F! (*$%.+%&!$*!-%'!"F"2'!<$,P+%&!(<$"'!<',!Z[(E7! for of昀ce uses) and we’re 昀nding that cycle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
!"#
A%)328/*D.)9.)E&*F/328GD.:*H='&&'.)*I.)%*
61
!"#$$%$&
'$#"()%*+
,$&%$--.%$&
928-127124.1 +-.3%*-+
!"#$%#&'()*+,-.#/&0(1/%+$$#&'
F"G$#5(H+-$>(7+0#'&
2-,./',-*34
H->*(7+0#'&
2/&0.,"5.#/&(6/'#0.#50
<+5.#/&(IJK(<"**/,.
7-.-(2/$$+5.#/&(8(9&-$40#0
<+5.#/&(LMN
7+$#:+,4;(<+,:#5#&'(-&%(=-0.+(<.,-.+'#+0
<+,:#5+(O-,%(7+0#'&
7+>-&%(?/,+5-0.#&'
<.-.#/&(1/%+$$#&'
@&:#,/&>+&.-$(A>*-5.(900+00>+&.
Traf昀c Management
@B*+,.(=#.&+00
P,-&0*/,.(900+00>+&.
C#'3D-4(7+0#'&
P,-&0*/,.(A>*-5.(900+00>+&.
C#'3D-4(6#5+&5+0
P,-&0*/,.(F/$#54
C#'3D-4(1/%+$$#&'
P,-:+$(F$-&&#&'
1-E/,(@:+&.(!#%%#&'
P,#*(Q+&+,-.#/&
1-0.+,*$-&&#&'
R,G-&(7+0#'&
)*+,-.#/&-$(F$-&&#&'
S+3#5$+(P,-5T#&'(<."%#+0
F+%+0.,#-&(1/%+$$#&'
S+&"+(2,/D%(?$/D(1/%+$$#&'
F+%+0.,#-&(<."%#+0
http://bit.do/eZB9d 62
/"%*01)213%+%)11 24.15-6+%)-11 72.182.-1%$72
PLANNING FOR THE 24-HOUR CITY | SUE CHADWICK AND REZA NEWTON
The city lights are extra bright…they shine for us 1 tonight Sue Chadwick and Reza Newton ask whether planning in general, and London in particular, is changing fast enough to maintain a vibrant evening economy
Reza Newton is an associate and Sue Chadwicka strategic planning advisor with the Planning Environment Energy and Infrastructure team at Pinsent Masons
Sadiq Khan appointed Amy Lamé as the first ever Night Czar in October 2016 and has recently claimed that there is a "huge opportunity" in promoting a 24 hour London2. The political context is positive, but there are a number of planning law and policy issues ready to emerge from the shadows as the all-night economy gains momentum. This article asks: is London ready to be a 24 hour city? A city of night owls In October 2017 the GLA established the London Night Time Commission, which published their report "Think Night: London's Neighbourhoods from 6pm to 6am" in January this year3. The statistics suggest that Londoners are already making the most of the night shift: • 65 per cent of Londoners are active at night and 1.6m people are at work; • The biggest growth in public transport use is from 10pm to 7am and a quarter of all journeys take place at night; • 65 per cent of Londoners go out at night at least once a week; • 54 per cent of Londoners usually go to bed after 11pm and 24 per cent after midnight, (both statistics are significantly higher than the UK average). However a booze-based ladette (or lad) culture appears to be a thing of the past. People aged 16-24 years are less likely to drink than other age groups, only 4.3 per cent of crimes at night are alcohol related and 19 per cent of night time activities are gym or sports related. While Londoners (and visitors) already embrace a night time culture, the city itself lags behind other major European cities in what it can offer. However, London appears to be in good socio-economic shape and more than ready to expand its nocturnal horizons – something beginning to be appreciated by policy makers. Night-positive policies The 'Think Night' report recently published by the Night Time Commission has ten recommendations - the first one being that the Mayor should "put the night at the heart of London policy-making". The EIP for the London Plan has just ended and includes Policy HC6 "Supporting the night time economy" which aims to do just that. Policy HC6 includes a range of policy aspirations including asking all boroughs to develop a vision for a night time economy and promote it where appropriate, extend opening hours, protect cultural venues and promote an integrated approach to planning and licensing controls. It is particularly supportive of applications within or close to regeneration areas and a 24-
www.planninginlondon.com
hour tube service. Whether the GLA's support for the night time economy filters down into local authorities' own planning policy, strategies and decision-making remains to be seen, but surely that is vital if London is to develop a true night time culture. The GLA has also used its own planning powers to protect entertainment venues. In April 2018 Westminster City Council notified the Mayor of London of a proposal for a new mixed use development on the junction of Wells Street and Oxford Street (Application reference 18/03229/FULL). The Scandal nightclub was one of the existing basement uses and the loss of night time economy floorspace was described as "unacceptable". The scheme was amended to include the re-provision of all the nightclub floorspace without any hours restriction and permission was granted for the development on 11 March this year, including a 106 agreement that restricted occupation of the office premises prior to completion of the nightclub space.
Nocturnal nuisances It is not all good news for night time uses – as the recent DCMS Committee Report on Live Music noted, the need to protect night time uses such as live music venues must recognise the potential for conflict between existing noiseemitting venues and new noise-sensitive developments. London Plan policy Policy HC6 reflects this dichotomy: it supports the night time economy but also recognises that local authorities should also "address the cumulative impact of high concentrations of licensed premises and their impact on anti-social behaviour, noise pollution, health and wellbeing and other impacts issues for residents and nearby uses, and seek ways to diversify and manage these areas." It also recognises that 24 hour activities are not suitable everywhere and that the needs of residents need to be balanced against economic benefits. These cautious policies suggest that the potential to create nuisance must be taken into account in planning decisions when a 24 hour culture is being created. If so then the judgment in Coventry v Lawrence4 makes for uncomfortable reading. The case involved an established speedway stadium benefitting from a permission granted in 1975, and a motocross track with a personal permission allowing only occasional events. The occupants of a nearby residence brought a claim for nuisance resulting in the grant by the High Court of an injunction restricting noise levels This decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal and it was left to the Supreme Court to resolve the issues – including whether an existing planning permission could be used as a defence to an action in nuisance. The Court ruled that it could not. It was not a defence to say >>>
Issue 110 July-September 2019
63
PLANNING FOR THE 24-HOUR CITY | SUE CHADWICK AND REZA NEWTON
>>> that the claimant had come to the nuisance rather than the other way round and the mere fact that the activity had the benefit of a planning permission was not a defence either. Lord Neuberger specifically noted that "it seems wrong in principle that…a planning authority should be able to deprive a propertyowner of a right to object to what would otherwise be a nuisance". The injunction granted by the high court was restored, restricting the noise levels at the stadium on a permanent basis. Legal Solutions?? The implications of this case are that no–one can rely on the grant of a planning permission as way of preventing claims for nuisance being made, or for those claims being successful. However, Lord Carnwath accepted that granting numerous permissions for a certain type of use could lead to a fundamental change in the character of the area. When such a change has occurred it may be more difficult to complain about noise nuisance. The policy context may also help. Paragraph 182 of the 2019 Framework states that "Existing businesses and facilities should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of development permitted after they were established." It goes on to recommend that the applicant who is coming to the area - the 'agent of change' - should be required to provide suitable mitigation before the development has been completed. Planning permission is increasingly being granted for residential development in proximity to noise-emitting venues, whether that be music, light-industrial or otherwise. Binding agreements between developers and operators of potential nuisance-creating venues can overcome "nuisance" type issues and allow otherwise incompatible uses to co-exist in proximity. These agreements are becoming more common across London – notably the Eileen House development (next to the Ministry of Sound) in Southwark in 2013/2014. Quid pro quo legal commitments can include: installing acoustic glazing; internal enclosed "wintergardens" for residents instead of outdoor balconies and communal space, and may be offered by developers in return for operators supporting (or at least not objecting to) planning applications and guaranteeing that noise emissions will remain below prescribed levels. Nocturnal Novelties The Think Night report proposes a bold and imaginative approach to the way that properties are used to support a 24 hour economy. As well as extended opening hours for shops it encourages boroughs to allow unused spaces for pop up and late night activities. It also introduces and promotes the idea of a 'nest' approach to uses, following the lead of cultural institutions such as Tate Modern in allowing some late night events, and freeing up space inside buildings for workshops,
64
Planning in London
performances and temporary bars. This recommendation is also taken up by policy HC6 which encourages daytime uses to expand into the night time, night time activities to extend their hours, and also use of facilities such as community centres, libraries and markets into the night. In the meantime, premises such as "de School" in Amsterdam, which is both a major night club and a cultural venue with a café, restaurant and gym, show how the 24 hour premises might work in practice. The idea of flexible and mixed uses is not particularly unfamiliar in planning law. The General Permitted Development Order has always allowed some flexibility within broad use classes and has recently been amended to permit a wide range of community uses in business premises. These new uses include provision of medical or health services, and can be in place for up to three years. In addition planning has always recognised that the dominant use of the premises - for a purpose such as retail - can include ancillary activities such as cafes without needing planning permission. The question is whether planning in general, and London in particular, is changing fast enough to maintain a vibrant evening economy. New uses such as Esports are rapidly moving from the virtual to the real world, and firms such as Deliveroo are increasingly reliant on 'dark kitchens' as part of their delivery supply chain. Neither of these uses could have been anticipated by a Use Classes Order first drafted in the same year that London City Airport opened and Rick Astley topped the charts, and neither fits easily into the existing use class categories. The General Permitted Development Order was consolidated in 2015 and has been amended since to adjust to the need for click-and-collect services shops, renewable energy installations, minor works for fracking and taller charging points – but seems to be in a permanent state of catch up. It is not clear that the planning system is ready for uses that are mixed, not just in space but also in time. Streets of the Future? On 30th May EE launched 5G in the UK, including most of Zone 1. This technology, combined with developments in AI, and the exponential rate of growth in the Internet of Things means that it will not be long before our streets are 'alive' with cameras and other sensors accessing, interpreting and sharing data, including perhaps our own biometrics – and a new range of issues to keep architects, lawyers and planners up all night. n Footnotes 1 "Love this Town" song written by Dylan Mills, Teddy Sky, RedOne, Jimmy Joker and Eric Sanicola sung by by Dizzee Rascal, featuring vocals from Teddy Sky 2 https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ntc_report_online.pdf 3 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/ cmselect/cmcumeds/733/733.pdf 4 Coventry and others v Lawrence and another [2014] UKSC https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2014/46.html
NEW USES FOR THE HIGH STREET | FÉLICIE KRIKLER
This is not the end; it is just the start Félicie Krikler believes that introducing complementary residential use classes to ailing high streets could help reimagine these oncevital social hubs
Félicie Krikler is a director at Assael Architecture
As Philip Green’s fashion empire collapses before his eyes, and retail sales record the worst slump seen in 24 years, the British high street could do with some good news. The decline of the traditional high street has long been due, with the dizzying growth of e-commerce, increasingly stringent business rates and the cyclical swings of consumer confidence giving traditional retail outlets a kicking. But while the decline of the high street may be touted as technological and economic progress by some, the loss of these cultural and social centres will cause irrevocable damage to towns and cities throughout the country. With more and more stores closing, town centres and urban districts have become a lifeless street of dirty glass, ‘closing soon’ signs and last-ditch clearance sales. This current retail malaise, however, could be turned on its head and seized for the opportunity that it is. Truth be told, the high street has actually got a lot going for it. It benefits from fantastic transport links, key social amenities, and services are usually based there or around it and there are also large swathes of public realm and green spaces distributed around them. In many ways, they have many of the foundational assets required to make the vibrant and exciting destinations that are
www.planninginlondon.com
the stuff of masterplanners and placemakers dreams. So, how do we seize this exciting opportunity? The idea is simple, but successfully pulling it off requires flair: introducing purpose-designed, purpose-built residential assets and community spaces onto the high street to complement existing retail uses, revive community spirit and drive regeneration throughout the UK’s towns and cities. Bringing community back is key. The number of opportunities now available and projects we are beginning to see emerge on the high street is kicking off a new era for cultural centres. Central Parade in Walthamstow, for instance, is just one regeneration project that has reused old spaces for a diverse array of activities. In 2015, the building was in dire need of repurposing and so a joint venture between the London Borough of Waltham Forest and the London Authority’s High Street Fund funded the project, which has been an unmitigated success. The idea was to open up space for businesses to collaborate, share resources and co-locate to create a community of arts and creative enterprises. These appropriately titled ‘meanwhile spaces’ have provided many local businesses with an opportunity to thrive. >>>
Issue 110 July-September 2019
65
NEW USES FOR THE HIGH STREET | FÉLICIE KRIKLER
>>>
Félicie is an experienced architect specialising in urban regeneration. From large, mixed-use and masterplanning projects to thinking of the smallest details of urban living, Félicie is instrumental on leading the design of many of Assael’s key projects. Félicie is also leading on design-based research initiatives including designing housing for older generations and developing the new landscape division at Assael. She is a keen artist and tries to sketch as much as possible for work and pleasure!
66
Planning in London
For so many local businesses, high rents and the competition from massive online stores have been driving them into the ground. Through offering these up as ‘meanwhile spaces’, councils and developers offer short leases at reasonable prices on the understanding that they will leave after a certain time. It’s flexible, dynamic and brings people together once again on the high street. The death of the traditional forms of retail does not have to be the death of the high street. On the contrary – the opportunities now available for smaller projects is diversifying our towns, expanding our activities beyond the mass-produced, throw-away shopping culture towards community-driven developments. Where I live in West Norwood, the Feast monthly market has transformed the high street. Split into five different sections, the market contains about 100 stalls all run by some 40 volunteers. The Feast is remarkably diverse and although it hasn’t physically changed the streetscape, it’s been a drive for change. Between Istanbul fabrics, vintage stalls, and a children’s arts and craft stand, there’s an immense variety of choice, whether it’s clothes, food or activities. These community-led initiatives are what bring a town together. Historically, England was intensely market-town orientated but the huge retail chains of Arcadia and the supermarket phenomenon forced the local produce out, along with the small businesses and the communities they served. But we need to expand, diversify and intensify the UK’s high streets if we want to see true change. Complementing the diversification of cultural and commercial opportunities, there needs to be a diversification in tenure types within town centres. A varied residential offer is what could bring people back to the high street; without the diversity of people, the culture of the town will see no reimagination. It is our responsibility to unlock the space for additional residential development, whether it’s from infill sites, the airspace above buildings or converting abandoned retail stores. At a time of continued housing shortages throughout much of the country, the high street also provides a large swathe of developable land to provide volume to the housing market. Luckily, the government is moving with the times and is aware of the transformation underway. The recent London Plan has encouraged the intensification of uses, meaning that the restrictions on the type of asset that can be built will be relaxed. High streets will no longer have to have strict retail or residential zones, and instead will get to enjoy more varied types of developments within a closer area. From the ever-maturing Build to Rent sector to emerging Later Living developments, these self-sustaining communities will bring life back to the high street, amid the new retail and community opportunities, and build it from strength to strength. It’s important that introducing residential uses to the high street
does not come at the wholesale cost of incumbent retail spaces. A series of straight retail to resi conversions would be a missed opportunity, transforming one monoculture into another, without the vibrancy and community that the high street can offer. Instead, residential uses should seek to complement and supplement the fabric of the high street. What this means in practice is utilising air rights, unlocking infill sites and partaking in sparing retail to resi conversions. It also means embracing the promise of MMC to deliver turn-key solutions on tight and challenging sites, and driving up the diversity and intensity of land use in urban areas. British culture is still increasingly tied to the idea that moving out of the city into the suburbs is a done thing when you start a family. Town centres have always been unattractive to families but with these new plans these urban areas are providing much better accommodation for their needs. The ease of Build to Rent living combined with the accessibility to shops and local amenities show that central, high street-based apartments are no longer undesirable. For Later Living communities, this is perfect. Care homes and retirement villages have often been criticised for causing loneliness amongst the older generations due to their remoteness and inaccessibility for both residents and visiting families. However, the latest push for an aspirational Later Living product could use the ailing high street as its basis to put people back into the centre of town once again. It’s a quid pro quo – the high street benefits from the influx of retired downsizers and rightsizers who have the time and money to invest in their community, while the older generations get a new lease of life by being connected to a vibrant community. Grandchildren and children will come flocking to the area to visit their loved ones and experience the wonders of a new community. The high street still has a lot to offer as central locations with public amenities, retail diversity, green spaces, public areas, transport links, and social infrastructure. Providing high-quality residential options for a diverse range of populations will complement the existing high street infrastructure and help reinvigorate our town centres. The demise of the large retail chains is not something to be lamented. Traditional concepts of the high street are making way for new, innovative developments that utilise the urban centres to their full potential. By no means is this the death of the high street. It is the birth of something new, with community and commerce at its heart. n
Later living community
Typical high street uses
www.planninginlondon.com
Issue 110 July-September 2019
67
DISTINCTIVELY LOCAL | ANDREW BEHARRELL, BEN WILLIAMSON, SIMON BAYLISS, STEPHEN PROCTOR, TRICIA PATEL
A distinctively local approach to designing homes fit for the future In response to the Minister’s call to action four architecture firms have come together to respond through Distinctively Local, a report that focuses on new suburban and rural housing, including urban extensions, suburban infill and completely new settlements
RIGHT, CLOCKWISE FROM TOP LEFT, report authors: Andrew Beharrell Ben Williamson Simon Bayliss Stephen Proctor Tricia Patel
68
Planning in London
At the start of 2019, housing minister Kit Malthouse challenged architects to help Britain achieve the government’s ambitious housing targets by ‘’building the homes the next generation deserves’’. Writing in the Architects’ Journal in January 2019, he said: ‘’If you get the design right - the scale, the context, the fitness communities will feel enhanced and respected, and will lay down their petitions and placards.’’ In response to this call to action, our four architecture firms have come together to respond directly and positively to this challenge through Distinctively Local, a new report that focuses on new suburban and rural housing, including urban extensions, suburban infill and completely new settlements. It aims to inform and inspire those who may be planning, designing, delivering or hoping to inhabit new developments, including the latest generation of garden towns and villages. It includes guidance and case studies showing how to create genuinely distinctive and popular places. In doing so we hope it will help foster a positive perception of new development that can in turn help smooth the path for boosting housing supply. Our report is also intended to support and complement Sir
Oliver Letwin’s Independent Review of Build Out Rates (October 2018) and the RIBA’s response, published in the same month, The Ten Primary Characteristics of Places Where People Want to Live. Unlike the RIBA document, our report does not aim to provide a comprehensive primer on placemaking. Rather, we concentrate on key aspects of design and aim to show in more detail ‘what good looks like’. They are: creating places which respond to their context; designing people-friendly streets and open spaces; crafting modern houses which feel like home; and offering choice and diversity. Beyond the practical needs of comfort and convenience, people aspire to live in places which promote health, happiness and, that elusive concept, community. We also value a sense of place: that our neighbourhood, village, town or city has some special and positive characteristics that make it different from others. The government certainly agrees. The rewritten National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) published in July 2018 promotes community engagement as a means to understand the local context and instil new development with distinctive character. Every local plan and every urban design guide seems to feature the phrase ‘local distinctiveness’.
THIS PAGE CASE STUDY Abode at Great Kneighton, Cambridge Architect Proctor & Matthews Photo ©Tim Crocker
Everyone agrees that there is a problem of affordability: that the price of homes to rent or buy is too high in relation to average incomes, and that there are not enough homes at suitably subsidised rents for those on low incomes. Most of our leaders agree that the way to remedy the situation is to build more homes, thereby redressing the balance between supply and demand. For the first time in 40 years housing is near the top of the political agenda, regarded by all parties as a significant election issue. In 2015, government pledged to boost supply, building one million new homes from 2015 to 2020 and increasing annual completions to 300,000 by the mid-2020s. In the November 2017 budget, the chancellor Philip Hammond pledged £15.3 billion of new financial support for housebuilding and land supply over the following five years – taking the total to £44 billion. Housebuilders and large housing associations (which increasingly see themselves as housebuilders with a social purpose) are gearing up to deliver. They talk confidently about development programmes running into tens of thousands of homes. But there is another looming crisis, the skills shortage in the construction industry: skilled people are retiring, and not enough young people are entering an industry perceived as old-fashioned; physical conditions on site are uncomfortable and the culture is seen as ‘laddish’; productivity is poor; training and apprenticeship programmes have not recovered from the last recession. All of which was made plain in the 2016 Farmer Review of the UK
>>>
In addition, in November 2018, the government launched the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission. Its purpose is “to tackle the challenge of poor-quality design and build of homes and places across the country, and help ensure as we build for the future, we do so with popular consent.’’ We applaud the government’s focus on quality, but caution that successful placemaking involves much more than stylistic preference.
More, Better, Faster Everyone is talking about the ‘housing crisis’, but this means different things to different people. If we are to respond successfully to the Housing Minister’s call for ‘more, better, faster’ delivery of new homes then we need to understand the tension between the many different challenges behind the housing crisis. To some this means a crisis of homelessness, illustrated by rising numbers of rough sleepers and people in temporary accommodation. To others it means a crisis of home ownership, illustrated by falling numbers of owner occupiers and the growing cohort of ‘generation rent’.
www.planninginlondon.com
Issue 110 July-September 2019
69
DISTINCTIVELY LOCAL | ANDREW BEHARRELL, BEN WILLIAMSON, SIMON BAYLISS, STEPHEN PROCTOR, TRICIA PATEL
>>> Construction Labour Model: Modernise or Die, which called for greater innovation and offsite manufacture to be adopted in housebuilding. The challenge for Distinctively Local is therefore to reconcile the push for increasing housing numbers with the aspiration for high quality and locally distinctive homes and places, especially against a background of skills shortages and rising construction costs. Everyone wants great places, rooted in their context and offering choice to consumers, but this comes at a time of growing pressure to adopt standardised production in order to double supply in a period of acute labour shortage and rising construction costs. Distinctively Local shows that it is possible to square these circles. Putting Distinctively Local into practice To achieve this, government (local and national), communities and the housing industry need to understand that successful placemaking involves much more than stylistic preference. It begins with an effective masterplan containing the seeds of distinctive character and identity. At the outline stage there is no need to commit to any specific form of architectural expression indeed, to do so is sometimes a distraction from strategic plan making, and designers should tread carefully in this area. However, in order to illustrate the feel of a place, design teams often do get drawn early into the question of ‘style’, and present seductive illustrations to help sell the overall concept. It is therefore important to understand that character will grow RIGHT and ABOVE: CASE STUDY: Beechwood West in Basildon allow buyers to create their own homes from one million potential design combinations Architect PTE
70
Planning in London
out of a wide and complex range of interconnected issues, including viability and process as well as visual preference. Designing and building homes that respond to local context can be more thoughtful than architectural style alone. If we can look beyond this then we can start to foster a positive perception of new developments, which can in turn make the planning
process a smoother journey. This will have a real impact in boosting housing supply. Not only do we believe this can be done, we have shown it can be done. Our report highlights 15 case studies featuring projects from the four practices that illustrate some or all of the Distinctively Local issues and themes. They range in size from just 25 to over 650 homes, and they point the way towards creating good homes and places at a much larger scale: we also include examples of masterplans for 1,000 homes and more, which show how to scale up the approach to placemaking. Most importantly, they are popular with the people who live in and around them. n
THE CASE STUDIES ARE DESCRIBED ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES Distinctively Local can be read in full here: http://www.distinctively-local.co.uk/
>>>
www.planninginlondon.com
Issue 110 July-September 2019
71
DISTINCTIVELY LOCAL | ANDREW BEHARRELL, BEN WILLIAMSON, SIMON BAYLISS, STEPHEN PROCTOR, TRICIA PATEL
>>>
ABOVE: CASE STUDY Officers Field Architect HTA
The case studies Officers Field The development of the Officers’ Field on the Portland Peninsula in Dorset delivers an exemplar for the integration of new homes into an existing townscapes. The site offers dramatic views, easy access to varying public open spaces and a wide range of home designs by crafting its design to deal with complex topography, varying boundary conditions and a site whose shape could not comfortably accommodate conventional housing designs. The site’s pervious use meant it was disconnected from its surroundings so HTA’s design response creates new connections to the football pitch and public square at the heart of the new neighbourhood. The existing landscape had split the site in two parts and HTA’s design reintegrates them, carving a central stair into the topography to echo the steps of the surrounding coastal town. The homes are embedded in their setting with local stone weaving through the site and connecting buildings to boundary walls, planters and steps in one continuous material. Split level homes ensure each and every level of this steep site is addressed by homes and makes the most of sea views. Approaching Portland along the dramatic Chesil beach the strong gabled silhouette and colour palette of the new homes visibly reflects the roofscape of their surroundings. Ninewells, Cambridge - Hill Residential and BPHA Situated against open fields and enjoying views towards the Gog Magog Hills, Ninewells creates a new southern edge to the city of Cambridge. PRP’s vision was to develop a scheme that respects the character of its location and creates a range of homes each enjoying picturesque view of the surrounding
72
Planning in London
countryside. Along the rural southern edge of the development, the homes have been designed to reflect traditional agricultural buildings using materials such as timber cladding. These barn-inspired homes allow open space and landscape to flow between them into the scheme. In contrast, to the north lies the very urban buildings of Addenbrooke's Hospital. This transition in character is reflected in the scheme by a more contemporary, ordered and urban architectural character along the northern boundary. The result of this sympathetic design is a selection of contemporary homes that respond seamlessly to their unique setting. Beechwood Why should the opportunity to design your own home be restricted to the wealthy in Britain? This project enables people on ordinary incomes to configure their own homes from a huge menu of choices, including external form and material, so that the character of the place is built up through the selfexpression of each household. The homes are then built to order in the factory and delivered to site. Buyers first select their plot and then create their new homes using specialist software. Starting with the basics - number of bedrooms, arrangement of the downstairs and upstairs plans and the level of specification. A custom-build approach requires the materials proposed to be visually cohesive and completely interchangeable. Drawing its inspiration from the best of British suburban housing, Beechwood West offers 21st century homes that express the needs and aspirations of their owners.
DISTINCTIVELY LOCAL
Distinctively Local can be read in full here: http://www.distinctively-local.co.uk/ DISTINCTIVELY LOCAL
BELOW: The authors:
www.planninginlondon.com
Issue 110 July-September 2019
73
FIRE SAFETY | ANTHONY CASSIDY
Managing fire safety in a change of use building Developers, landlords and all responsible for the refurbishment of a change of use building need to be aware of their obligations when it comes to fire safety says Anthony Cassidy FOOTNOTES 1 https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/housing-and-land/tackling-londonshousing-crisis 2 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/when-is-permissionrequired 3 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/when-is-permissionrequired#changesofuse 4 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ uksi/2005/1541/contents/made Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 – applicable in England and Wales; Fire (Scotland) Act 2005; Fire Safety (Scotland) Regulations 2006; The Fire and Rescue Services (Northern Ireland) Order 2006; and The Fire Safety Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2010. 5 https://www.legislation.gov.uk /ukpga/2004/34/section/1 6 http://www.cieh.org/media/ 1244/guidance-on-fire-safetyprovisions-for-certain-types-ofexisting-housing.pdf
Anthony Cassidy is health, safety & fire technical manager at Bureau Veritas
74
Planning in London
Referred to as the ‘greatest challenge facing London today’ by the Greater London Authority1, the housing shortage in the City and the South East in particular has led to the rise in change of use buildings. Primarily, the increased demand for residential flats, combined with the slowdown of the office market has resulted in many developers looking for opportunities to convert office premises into residential dwellings. Whilst alleviating the housing crisis, there are considerations around managing fire safety in a change of use building, as requirements for residential buildings are different to other types of building. Some developers, especially smaller operations, may not be aware of this, especially as planning permission is not always required in change of use buildings; which poses a potential risk factor in terms of fire safety. As an added issue, these redevelopments or refurbishments often happen at a rapid pace which, alongside potential loopholes within the fire safety order and planning process, can pose a potential fire risk for residents. Generally speaking, planning permission is required when change of use works include what the Government defines as ‘development’, which includes but is not limited to ‘material change of use’2 In theory this incorporates change of use buildings, as the transition from say an office block (deemed a class B building) to a residential unit (deemed a class C building) would constitute a material change of use. A change of use where the before and after use falls within the same class would be permissible without planning permission; for example changing a shop to a café (both within class A). The lines become blurred however as there are certain circumstances that are the exception to this system, where developers may be permitted development rights which allow change of use, without having to make a planning application3. The governmentpermitted development rights scheme allows certain change of uses to be carried out without planning permission in these circumstances and an example is change of use from an office to a residential unit. Although it makes the process more straightforward for the developer (notwithstanding that they are still required to submit a Prior Approval application with planning drawings and supporting documentation, as well as seek consent from the local council for change of use), the consideration around adapting and/or installing correct fire safety features adequate for a residential dwelling is paramount. Fire safety obligations and considerations It is important that both the landlord and any other organisations responsible for managing the refurbishment process in a change of use building are aware of their fire safety duties and are mindful that these loopholes are not a means to cut corners. Additional legislation is in place to protect occupants of residential dwellings when it comes to fire safety, compared
with other types of building use. All building refurbishment work falls under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 20054, which outlines what is required in order to comply with fire safety law. The Housing Act 20045 was also designed to impose more stringent housing standards to protect occupants of residential dwelling and includes fire as a category hazard to be assessed. There is ample guidance available around fire safety management, including but not limited to the Guidance on fire safety provisions for certain types of existing housing produced by the Local Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory Services (LACORS6). There are also considerations around the building itself. Older buildings may have outdated fire risk assessments and fire preventative measures in place, which therefore must be revised. Refurbishments will need to follow the same stringent fire safety and fire risk assessment requirement as new builds and in these scenarios it can be more difficult to retrofit a solution that meets fire safety law. There may also be features in a building that were suitable for its original use but are not for residential use. Potentially safety-compromising scenarios to consider include things like compartmentation. For example, if an office unit had cables running through walls, the portholes created for this function might compromise fire compartmentalisation in a residential unit, unless this feature was modified. The means of escape also may not be suitable given the potential changes in occupancy figures. Additional fire risks may be introduced too, through communal cooking and use of cooking equipment in small confined bed-sit-type rooms; also items such as heaters may be brought in by residents to dry clothing where the provision of communal facilities are inadequate. Even small things such as lighting candles can pose an additional risk, which is why on this basis safety features such as automatic fire detection will certainly need reviewing. The same considerations should be applied to the higher education community, where rapid refurbishments are often done in order to meet a short-term need but the long-term use and suitability of these buildings are not always considered. As such, fire risk assessments must be carried out on all change of use buildings before passing building control and a building is occupied. This is critical, as in a worst case scenario, if fire safety does not meet requirements, building control will not be passed and if a building is occupied, an emergency evacuation procedure will be implemented until remedial work has been done. In order to avoid this, developers, landlords and all persons responsible for the refurbishment of a change of use refurbishment should be aware of their obligations and always seek expert advice when it comes to fire safety. n Bureau Veritas offers a one-stop solution for fire safety and compliance via an experienced team of technical experts. For more information, call 0345 600 1828 or visit www.bureauveritas.co.uk
Planning and Delivering Improvements to the Road Network 2019 Tuesday 9th July 2019 | Burges Salmon, London Improving the road network through investment in a more efficient transport system Highlights of attending: • Identify the plans for both England’s major roads and strategic road network, including the opportunities for new improvements • Explore how to invest in existing infrastructure and make better use of the current road network • Find out the challenges and opportunities facing local authorities when improving their local road network • Take away insight on how data analytics can reduce congestion and predict traffic flows • Hear how to respond to the impact of air pollution on public health – what are the initiatives that can be introduced to improve air quality including the use of clean air zones and other measures • 3+ hours of networking with senior roads professionals
SAVE 15% with code 383PIL T: E: W:
0207 067 1597 conference@thewaterfront.co.uk www.waterfrontconferencecompany.com
75
Collaborative Construction Procurement and Improved Value
20% OFF
David Mosey
Explore how strategic thinking, intelligent team selection, contract integration and the use of digital technology can enhance the value of construction projects and programmes of work.
With 50 UK case studies, plus chapters from specialists in 6 other jurisdictions, Collaborative Construction Procurement and Improved Value:
76
•
Describes in detail the legal and procedural route maps for successful collaborative teams.
•
Examines the ways to create an e昀ective contract that will spell success throughout the procurement process
•
Contains helpful case studies from real-world projects and programmes
•
Explores the benefits of the collaborative construction process and how to overcome common obstacles
•
Bridges the gaps between contract law, collaborative working and project management
•
Includes the first analysis of the NEC4 Alliance Contract, the FAC-1 Framework Alliance Contract and the TAC-1 Term Alliance Contract
ISBN 978-1-119-15191-3 | £79.95
To claim your 20% discount visit wiley.com and quote code VBR59 at the checkout before 31st December 2019
INSULATION | JAMES AYRES
The importance of breathability James Ayres cites pioneering, real-world evidence of how breathable buildings promote good health
Much of the existing research into insulation is carried out using computer models. The results, however, aren’t based on real-world performance over a period of time, various weather conditions and within an actual building. Prior to the project, the home studied was extremely cold. In winter, with central heating on full, the living room rarely reached 18°C. In 2011, working with the Society for the Protection of Ancient Building and ArchiMetrics, we installed sensors into the external wall of a two-bed, 1820s, Victorian, terraced home to monitor the performance of our breathable insulation materials. This project was also part-funded by Historic England as a result of its interest in the results A typical insulation upgrade Many insulation upgrades consist of plasterboard fixed to foam insulation, installed onto the internal face of a solid brick wall. A computer model predicts no condensation, as it assumes no gaps between the insulation boards and a static climate – ie no weather variations.In practice, insulation isn’t installed perfectly, there will be small gaps where water vapour can enter the pores. Moisture will also penetrate from external weather, from leaks and the construction phase of applying wet plasters. If the insulation materials are impermeable, it’s difficult for this moisture to evaporate. This may lead to a long-term build-up of condensation and – a risk of mould The breathable wall insulation upgrade Prior to insulation, the wall we tested was solid brick, coated internally with a thin layer (12mm) of Lime Green Duro. This parge coat is a breathable, render/plaster based on hydraulic
The need for real-world data Computer models only go so far in detailing how a wall may perform as they make basic assumptions which aren’t realistic, such as: • Insulation is installed perfectly To stop water vapour permeating into the wall, the building work would need to be perfectly gas-tight. This isn’t possible: when insulation or Vapour Control Layers (VCL) are installed there’s always some vapour permeation – this is perfectly fine providing your materials are breathable, enabling moisture to evaporate.
ABOVE: a typical insulation upgrade BELOW: the breathable wall insulation upgrade
lime and recycled aggregates, preventing drafts through brickwork but keeping breathability. Before insulating, we fitted three sensors into the wall. One near the outside face of the external brickwork, one approximately 30mm into the internal facing brickwork and the third onto the parge coat. Internal and external temperatures and humidity were also logged. To insulate, 40mm of woodfibre was applied onto the parge coat. Then a 10mm coat of highly-vapour permeable, lime plaster – Lime Green Solo was applied. This was coated with mineral paint to retain breathability. After insulation, a fourth and final sensor was installed beneath the internal Solo plaster at the interface with the woodfibre. The computer model predicted that due to the permeability, significant condensation would occur between the woodfibre board and the parge coat, which could only be prevented by fitting a plastic membrane. The sensors were continuously monitored, logging data every five minutes for over six years. The following data reflects the performance of the wall over the most recent period:
• Humidity always flows from the internal environment, out. In some weather conditions – the opposite will be the case. • Temperature of external facing brick wall is equal to the external air temperature In different weather conditions – such as direct sunlight – the external temperature of the brick wall varies from the external environment. This can pump moisture in the opposite direction to that predicted. James Ayres is the cofounder and operations director at Lime Green
• Water is ignored Most moisture in the wall comes from driving rain or leaks, not condensation.
www.planninginlondon.com
Saturation margin (01 Nov 2017 – 30 Jan 2019)
Issue 110 July-September 2019
>>>
77
INSULATION | JAMES AYRES
>>>
Saturation margin conveys how much colder a wall would need to be before condensation occurs. A figure of 0°C indicates condensation. Sensor one (S1) The saturation margin is very large, showing a big drop in temperature would be needed for condensation. This is unsurprising as the sensor is on the warm, dry side of the insulation. S1 is strongly influenced by the internal humidity, buffering excess moisture before releasing it later. Sensors two and three (S2) and (S3) There is no condensation or water between the woodfibre and the Duro coat on the cold (external) side of the insulation or near the internal side of the brick wall. This is a crucial finding as the computer model had wrongly predicted S2 was a high-risk zone, with vapour on the cold side of the insulation cooling and condensing into water at a rate of 2kg per m2. The saturation margins for S2 and S3 are stable with slow variations, indicating a lag time so moisture here takes a long time to escape. Sensor four (S4) There was moisture at S4 during a number of periods particularly across autumn and winter months. This is from penetrating rainwater, demonstrating the permeability of the brick wall. Being so close to the outside of the wall, this zone also dries rapidly. The computer model predicted this sensor would be totally dry. The data obtained from this sensor, disproves the computer assumption that the external wall temperature matches the external environment. Sharp temperature increases occur in direct sunlight, even in winter months. In these conditions vapour will actually flow back towards the inside of the house.
Relative humidity (01 Nov 2017 – 30 Jan 2019) Relative humidity is the amount of moisture present, measured as a percentage of the maximum amount the air can hold before it becomes saturated. Mould has the potential to occur above 80% relative humidity. A temperature increase would see this relative humidity level drop, reducing risk of mould, even though the absolute quantity of moisture would remain the same. We analysed for relative humid-
ity as it’s a proxy for risk of mould. Sensor one (S1) This often showed relative humidity less than that of the internal environment – the lime plaster slows the rapid changes in the internal air from cooking etc. Sensors two and three (S2 and S3) These sensors remained stable over the period. This is expected, as they are the furthest points from both the internal and external environments and any vapour movement will be slow and incremental. Sensor four (S4) S4 varied most as it’s heavily influenced by external weather. Sometimes – during winter months S4 recorded levels of 100%, after wet, driving weather penetrating into the wall.
The data highlights an overall trend of the sensor readings and the internal and external temperatures, proving internal air quality is influenced by external conditions.
Breathability Prior to this project insulation performance hadn’t been researched this thoroughly; this is the first set of data showing how insulation works when faced with real-world variables. Previous research focused on the movement of water as a vapour but ignored the liquid water, which is just as important. The study is based on first principles, asking, “How do walls work? What is this wall doing?” – a fundamentally different approach to studies using computers to define performance and dictate design This research proves breathability can work – enabling vapour to escape a building’s fabric to prevent mould. Over six years, the wall got steadily drier and no condensation was observed. This demonstrates that in the real world, insulating historic walls is a complex task which requires careful thought about many factors, such as external weather, quality of workmanship and how the house will be used. In its paper, ‘An Introduction to Breathability’, the Alliance for Sustainable Building Products (ASBP) says, ‘breathability is the most effective way of maintaining stable and harmless moisture levels within the building fabric.’ n For more information about the benefits of breathability or the products used within this study visit www.lime-green.co.uk or call 01952 728611.
78
Planning in London
BOOKS: GOOD CLEAN FUN | JILL DROWER
Good Clean Fun: A Social History of Britain’s First Holiday Camp The functional disguised as the fantastic - an artist's impression of The Great Pavilion in 1904. This was the first ever example of holiday camp fantasy architecture, built in the Indian style with oriental domes. Especially popular at later holiday camps were buildings in the international style with the 'cruising on land' idea. Designed to look like the upper half of a ship, these buildings came complete with portholes, mast, wheelhouse bars and space at the stern for deck games. Picture credit: Mike Kelly
So how come the historians keep getting it wrong? asks the author, Jill Drower
Jill Drower is author of Good Clean Fun: A Social History of Britain’s First Holiday Camp (2018) £25.00 ISBN: 978-0-9927775-1-7 You may purchase the book through Speke’s Volumes at Amazon.co.uk
Like so many Brits, I went to Butlins as a child, winning the fancy dress one year as The Invisible Man, and competing in a talent contest another. What I did not know was that it was my great-grandfather who invented the British holiday camp. He not only coined the term itself, but he also devised the exact template for infrastructure, catering and entertainment which was, in later decades, to be imitated by Butlin, Pontin and Warner. All this before the turn of the twentieth century! Victorian Liverpool was a city of contrasts. The ‘jewel of the industrial revolution’, it was described by Moby Dick’s author, Herman Melville, as a sight to equal the old pyramids of Egypt. By 1850, the port had become a magnet, attracting a constant flow of those escaping famine or in search of a better life. Amongst the new arrivals were my great-great grand parents, who set up in business supplying bread to Cunard, Alan’s and other steamship companies. A notoriously dangerous and deprived part of town, the North End was characterised by overcrowding, Gerry-built ‘courts’, severe malnutrition, epidemics and a shocking infant mortality rate. It was here that my great-grandfather, Joseph Cunningham, set up Sunday schools, reading rooms and prayer halls. His involvement with the establishment of the Gordon and Florence Working Lads institutes led Cunningham and his followers to take parties of working lads out to the countryside for sports days in the fresh air. One of those participating later
www.planninginlondon.com
remembered an occasion in the 1880s when Cunningham took 500 lads on a trip ten miles out of town: ‘How did he do it? He hired canal boats, took the hatches off, loaded up the holds with humanity and, with hired horses proceeded down the Leeds and Liverpool canal to Lydiate. A borrowed boiler for hot water, a field from a sympathetic farmer, plenty of assistance in the way of stewards and the thing was done. What a day we had! How we enjoyed it! Who but Mr Cunningham could have such a brainwave?’ These outings soon became an annual summer camp at Great Orme’s Head or at Laxey in the Isle of Man and by 1898 Cunningham’s holiday camp had become a family business and a major commercial venture, offering holidays – ‘a full week for thirteen shillings!’ - throughout the season, with ‘none of the inconveniences of roughing it under canvas’. Campers were encouraged to save weekly for their holiday through the Cunningham savings bank. Campers slept in bell tents, lit by candle, with wooden flooring and sprung beds. Thus began Cunningham’s Young Men’s Holiday Camp. Rebuilt as a permanent holiday village above the Douglas seafront in 1904, the camp boasted a one hundred foot recreation hall, a heated swimming pool, barber’s shop, valet service and an orchestra to play at every meal. From the early nineteen hundreds, Cunningham’s was attracting 40,000 holiday makers every season
Issue 110 July-September 2019
79
BOOKS: GOOD CLEAN FUN | JILL DROWER
RIGHT: Two Edwardian holiday campers in front of their 'chalet'Â (circa 1908) - a candlelit bell tent. As with the holiday camps of the thirties, campers competed to give their tents a good name. One example, 'They Toil not Neither do they Spin' points to the background of many of those Pre-First World War campers - factory workers from the cotton mills. Picture credit: Mike Kelly
80
Planning in London
and for the four following decades, a sea of bell tents could be seen above the promenade of this popular Manx seaside resort. Catering was a military operation at Cunningham’s, with 2,500 covers per sitting in 1907. Such was the demand that four farms were merged, and one vast model farm built, which operated following 1918. With no convenience foods, the kitchens were a logistical challenge. Every week, three and half miles of sausage and 600 hams were produced and 42,000 breakfast rolls baked. Gravy and custard was produced in 100 gallon pans. At mealtimes, campers were encouraged to have extra servings, which led to the famous Cunningham eating competitions. Where the Cunningham Camp differed from its counterparts of the fifties and sixties was in the strictness of its rules. All campers had to sign a pledge on their booking form promising not to touch alcohol or use improper language during their holiday, and no women were allowed to stay at the camp. Despite the social changes that were brought about by the First World War,
Cunningham’s remained a men-only, teetotal camp until its sale in 1945. In the 1980s, I tried to find out more, but there was little in the British Library and academics were unanimous in believing that the British holiday camp as a mass movement only really got going after the Holidays With Pay Act of 1938. I advertised widely at that time and got a flood of replies that contradicted this. The staff or the campers themselves, their children and even their grandchildren made it clear that the memory of this extraordinary place had been passed down through several generations. These people knew that Cunningham’s Young Men’s Holiday Camp was a major phenomenon from the Edwardian period. Recent academic publications still place the start of mass holiday camps in the late 1930s. I hope this book now puts the record straight by setting the holiday camp story in its rightful place rooted in nineteenth century urban deprivation resulting from the Industrial Revolution. n
ABOVE: One of the many cartoon postcards depicting life at the Cunningham Camp before the First World War. The joyful refrain 'Are we downhearted? Are we coming back?' continued at later holiday camps with the cry, 'Is everybody happy?'. Picture credit: Jill Drower
Good Clean Fun: A Social History of Britain’s First Holiday Camp (2018), £25.00 ISBN: 978-09927775-1-7
www.planninginlondon.com
Issue 110 July-September 2019
81
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
82
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
COLLABORATIVE CONSTRUCTION | DAVID MOSEY
Collaborative Construction ‘Collaborative Construction Procurement and Improved Value’ (Wiley, April 2019 £79.95) provides a guide to how proven collaborative models and processes can move from the margins to the mainstream explains author David Mosey
Professor David Mosey is Director of the Centre of Construction Law & Dispute Resolution at King’s College London having spent over 30 years as a specialist construction lawyer
Collaborative Construction Procurement and Improved Value provides a guide for project managers, lawyers, designers, constructors and operators, showing step by step how proven collaborative models and processes can move from the margins to the mainstream. It covers all stages of the project lifecycle and offers new ways to embed learning from one project to the next. Construction projects should always be a team endeavour, yet despite extensive evidence as to the benefits of collaborative working, most procurement models and contracts do not support teamwork but instead focus on the transfer of risk down the supply chain. This traditional defensiveness reminds us that organisations are obliged to protect their own interests, and it is important to examine the extent to which collaborative alternatives provide equivalent or improved legal and commercial protections. A collaborative procurement approach should comprise processes and relationships through which a team can develop, share and apply information in ways that improve the design, construction and operation of their projects. A collaborative approach should support team selection and team integration, and it should offer a fresh approach to legal and cultural issues that can otherwise reduce efficiency and waste valuable resources. This book explores the delivery of economic and social value through improvements in strategic thinking, team selection, contract integration and the use of digital technology. It analyses the processes and relationships of collaborative construction procurement throughout each stage of the design, costing, timetabling, risk management, construction and operation of any project of programme of work. It uses analysis, guidance and over 50 case studies to illustrate how collaborative approaches can be adopted successfully by any team in any part of the construction sector. Collaboration among individuals engaged on a project or programme of work is only made possible by integrating the differing needs and commercial priorities of the organisations who employ them. Knowledge is power, and the legal and commercial tests of collaborative procurement include: • Firstly, whether team members build up shared knowledge at a time when it can be used to improve project outcomes • Secondly, whether team members use that shared knowledge to improve project outcomes rather than for their individual benefit. Many procurement models provide little time or opportunity for consultants, contractors, subcontractors, manufacturers and operators to integrate their work. Instead, these models attempt to fix prices without joint cost analysis and to transfer risks without joint risk management, often encouraging misunderstandings and disputes that lead to cost overruns, delays and
www.planninginlondon.com
defects. This book reviews the collaborative bridges that connect and integrate the work of different team members and that translate their aspirations into actions, plus a range of factors that may encourage or obstruct progress. New procurement models will not gain widespread support unless they offer benefits for all parties, and this book examines the ways in which procurement processes, digital technology and collaborative contracts can accommodate the differing aspirations and requirements of all team members. Collaborative Construction Procurement and Improved Value explores how collaborative team members are selected, whether collaboration needs a contract at all and, if so, whether a new type of contract is required to fulfil this role. It tests whether team members can integrate their work only by making non-binding declaration and the collaborative features of different standard form project contracts are compared. The new FAC-1 framework alliance contract and the TAC-1 term alliance contract, which have been adopted on £42 billion of procurements in their first three years, are examined in detail. Collaborative construction procurement needs to be sustained by personal relationships, and this book considers the different ways to create and support a collaborative culture. It also examines the potential for building information modelling (‘BIM’) and other digital technology to create new connections between team members, and to integrate the capital and operational phases of a project. Lessons learned from the case studies show how economic and social value can be improved. The different options available for costing, incentivising and programming a collaborative project or programme of work are assessed, as are joint risk management systems and alternative ways to avoid or resolve disputes. Six chapters have been contributed by leading practitioners in Australia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Germany, Italy and the USA. They describe how new approaches to collaborative procurement, contracts and BIM are adopted in each country, and they explore the different challenges arising in common law and civil law jurisdictions. Mark Farmer, author of Modernise or Die, commented that without ‘integrated working behaviours, the construction world will become an increasingly difficult place to work in. Reading this publication is a vital part of future-proofing yourself’. n
Issue 110 July-September 2019
83
BUY NOW: Interpreting the NPPF: The new National Planning Policy Framework The first book to explain in depth the revised NPPF & how it is likely to be interpreted in the courts. Essential reading for anyone with involved in local planning and development including planners, developers and their legal advisers About the Author Alistair Mills is a member of Landmark Chambers, one of the country's leading sets of planning barristers. He works for a range of clients in the planning field: private developers, objectors, central and local government.
READER OFFER Save £10 on the print / digital edition bundle - normally £60 but £50 for Planning in London readers when you use the code PIL0119 at checkout
He also maintains a digest of decisions relating to the NPPF on the Landmark Chambers website. 1st edition published October 2018 Paperback, 210 pages Print: £40 + p&p Digital: £40 + VAT Print / digital bundle: £50 + VAT (when using code PIL0119 ISBN 978-1-9164315-2-2
How to order v visit bathpublishing.com/planning v call 01225 577810 84
Planning in London
DIRECTORY
Planning and Environment Reference Guide Please notify any changes immediately by e-mail to planninginlondon@mac.com with the subject ‘planning in london directory’. LONDON BOROUGHS DIRECTORY
London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Barking Town Hall Barking IG11 7LU
Mr Paul Moore Acting Chief Executive paul.moore@bexley.gov.uk 0203 045 4901 David Bryce-Smith Director Public Protection, Housing and Public Realm david.bryce-smith@bexley.gov.uk 0203 045 5779
020 8215 3000 https://www.lbbd.gov.uk/residents/planning -and-building-control/ Chris Naylor Chief Executive London Borough of Barking and Dagenham chris.naylor@lbbd.gov.uk 020 8227 2137 Simon Green Predsident of Barking and Dagenham Chamber of Commerce info@bdchamber.co.uk 020 8591 6966 Jeremy Grint Divisional Director of Regeneration and Economic Development jeremy.grint@lbbd.gov.uk 020 8227 2443
London Borough of Barnet Building 4 North London Business Park (NLBP) Oakleigh Road South London N11 1NP 020 8359 3000 John Hooton Chief Executive john.hooton@barnet.gov.uk 020 8359 2000 Lesley Feldman Planning Development Manager lesley.feldman@barnet.gov.uk
Seb Salom Head of Strategic Planning and Transportation seb.salom@bexley.gov.uk 0203 045 5779 Kevin Murphy Head of Housing and Regeneration kevin.murphy@bexley.gov.uk 0203 045 5837 Robert Lancaster Head of Developmental Control robert.lancaster@bexley.gov.uk 0203 045 5837
London Borough of Brent Brent Civic Centre Engineers Way Wembley HA9 0FJ 020 8937 1200 www.brent.gov.uk Carolyn Downs Chief Executive chief.executive@brent.gov.uk 020 8937 1007 Amar Dave Strategic Director Regeneration and Environment amar.dave@brent.gov.uk 020 8937 1516 Alice Lester Head of Planning, Transport and Licensing alice.lester@brent.gov.uk 020 8937 6441
Annie Hampson Chief Planning Officer and Development Director annie.hampson@cityoflondon.gov.uk 020 7332 1700 London Borough of Croydon Development and Environment Bernard Weatherill House
London Borough of Bromley Civic Centre Stockwell Close Bromley BR1 3UH 020 8464 3333 Ade Adetosoye OBE Chief Executive ade.adetosoye@bromley.gov.uk 020 8313 4060
8 Mint Walk, Croydon CR0 1EA 020 8726 6000 www.croydon.gov.uk/ planningandregeneration
Jim Kehoe Chief Planner jim.kehoe@bromley.gov.uk 020 8313 4441
Chief Executive Ms Jo Negrini jo.negrini@croydon.gov.uk
Lisa Thornley Development Control Support Officer
Director of Planning and Strategic Transport Ms Heather Cheeseborough heather.cheeseborough@croydon.gov.uk Director of Development Ms Colom Lacey colm.lacey@croydon.gov.uk 020 8604 7367
lisa.thornley@bromley.gov.uk London Borough of Camden Town Hall Extension Argyle Street WC1H 8EQ 020 7974 4444 www.camden.gov.uk
Head of Building Control Ric Patterson richard.patterson@croydon.gov.uk
Jenny Rowlands Chief Executive jenny.rowlands@camden.gov.uk 020 7974 5621 Frances Wheat Acting Assistant Director for Regeneration and Planning frances.wheat@camden.gov.uk 020 7974 5630
London Borough of Ealing Perceval House 14-16 Uxbridge Road Ealing London W5 2HL 020 8825 6600 www.ealing.gov.uk/planning Chief Executive Paul Najsarek najsarekp@ealing.gov.uk 020 8825 5000
Aktar Choudhury Operational Director of Regeneration aktar.choudhury@brent.gov.uk 020 8937 1764
City of London Department for the Built Environment PO Box 270 Guildhall London EC2P 2EJ 020 7332 1710 www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/planning
London Borough of Bexley Civic Offices Broadway Bexleyheath DA6 7LB
Rob Krzysznowski Spatial Planning Manager rob.krzysznowski@brent.gov.uk 020 8937 2704
Town Clerk and Chief Executive John Barradell OBE john.barradell@cityoflondon.gov.uk 020 7332 1400
Executive Director of Environment Keith Townsend townsendk@ealing.gov.uk 020 8825 5000
020 8303 7777
David Glover Development Management Manager david.glover@brent.gov.uk 020 8937 5344
Director of the Built Environment Ms Carolyn Dwyer carolyn.dwyer@cityoflondon.gov.uk 020 7332 1600
Director of Safer Communities and Housing Mark Whitmore whitmorem@ealing.gov.uk 020 8825 5000
www.bexley.gov.uk/planning
www.planninginlondon.com
Director of Regeneration and Planning David Moore moored@ealing.gov.uk
Issue 110 July-September 2019
85
>>>
Chief Executive Tim Shields tim.shields@hackney.gov.uk 020 8356 3201
London Borough of Enfield PO Box Civic Centre Silver Street Enfield EN1 3XE 020 8379 4419 www.enfield.gov.uk/planning Chief Executive Ian Davis chief.executive@enfield.gov.uk 020 8379 3901
Assistant Director of Planning and Regulatory Services John Allen john.allen@hackney.gov.uk 020 8356 8134
Head of Development Management Andy Higham andy.higham@enfield.gov.uk 020 8379 3848 Planning Decisions Manager Sharon Davidson sharon.davidson@enfield.gov.uk 020 8379 3841 Transportation Planning David B Taylor david.b.taylor@enfield.gov.uk 020 8379 3576
020 8863 5611 www.harrow.gov.uk/planning
Director of Regeneration John Lumley john.lumley@hackney.gov.uk 020 8356 2138
Chief Executive Tom Whiting tom.whiting@harrow.gov.uk 020 8420 9495 Divisional Director of Planning Paul Nichols paul.nichols@harrow.gov.uk 020 8736 6149
The London Borough of Havering Town Hall Main Road Romford RM1 3BD
Head of Planning Regeneration John Finlayson john.finlayson@lbhf.gov.uk 020 8753 6740
01708 433100 www.havering.gov.uk
Royal Borough of Greenwich The Woolwich Centre 35 Wellington Street London SE18 6HQ
Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Skills Pippa Hack pippa.hack@greenwich.gov.uk 020 8921 5519 Assistant Director of Planning Victoria Geoghegan victoria.geoghegan@greewich.gov.uk 020 8921 5363 Assistant Director of Transportation Graham Nash graham.nash@greenwich.gov.uk London Borough of Hackney
Environment and Planning Hackney Service Centre 1 Hillman Street E8 1DY 020 8356 8062
86
Planning in London
Chief Executive Andrew Blake-Herbert andrew.blakeherbert@havering.gov.uk 01708 432201
Planning and Building Control Simon Thelwell simon.thelwell@havering.gov.uk 01708 432685
London Borough Of Haringey Level 6 River Park House 225 High Road Wood Green London N22 8HQ
Head of Development Management Dean Hermitage dean.hermitage@haringey.gov.uk
Head of Regeneration & Spatial Planning Ian Rae ian.rae@hounslow.gov.uk 020 8583 2561
London Borough of Islington 222 Upper Street London N1 1XR 020 7527 6743 www.islington.gov.uk/planning Chief Executive Ms Lesley Seary lesley.seary@islington.gov.uk 020 7527 3136
Team Leader for Planning & Projects Eshwyn Prabhu eshwin.prabhu@islington.gov.uk 020 7527 2450
Director for Housing, Regeneration & Planning Dan Hawthorn dan.hawthorn@haringey.gov.uk
Head of Planning Policy, Transport & Infrastructure Rob Krzyszowski rob.krzyszowski@haringey.gov.uk
Head of Development Management Marilyn Smith marilyn.smith@hounslow.gov.uk 020 8583 4994
Service Director of Planning & Development Karen Sullivan karen.sullivan@islington.gov.uk 020 7527 2949
020 8489 1400 www.haringey.gov.uk
Assistant Director for Planning & Building Control Emma Williamson emma.williamson@haringey.gov.uk
020 8583 5555 www.hounslow.gov.uk/planning
Planning Control Manager Helen Oakerbee helen.oakerbee@havering.gov.uk 01708 432800
Development & Transport Planning Martyn Thomas martyn.thomas@havering.gov.uk 01708 432845
020 8921 6426 www.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/planning
London Borough Of Hounslow Civic Centre Lampton Road Hounslow TW3 4DN
Strategic Director of Housing , Planning & Communities Peter Matthew peter.matthew@hounslow.gov.uk
Chief Executive Ms Kim Dero kim.dero@lbhf.gov.uk 020 8753 3000
Head of Policy & Spatial Planning Pat Cox pat.cox@lbhf.gov.uk 020 8753 5773
Head of Major Initiatives, Strategic Planning & Transportation Jales Tippell jales.tippell@hillingdon.gov.uk 01895 250230
Chief Executive Niall Bolger niall.bolger@hounslow.gov.uk 020 8770 5203
London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham Hammersmith Town Hall Extension King Street London W6 9JU 020 8748 3020 www.lbhf.gov.uk
Head of Development Management Ellen Whitchurch ellen.whitchurch@lbhf.gov.uk 020 8753 3484
Acting Chief Executive Ms Debbie Warren debbie.warren@royalgreenwich.gov.uk 020 8921 5000
London Borough of Harrow PO Box 37 Civic Centre Station Road Harrow HA1 2UY
Head of Spatial Planning Randall Macdonald 020 8356 8051
Head of Planning Policy Joanne Woodward joanne.woodward@enfield.gov.uk 020 8379 3881 Assistant Director Planning, Highways & Transportation Bob Griffiths bob.griffiths@enfield.gov.uk 020 8379 3676
Head of Planning & Enforcement James Rodger james.rodger@hillingdon.gov.uk 01895 250230
London Borough of Hillingdon Civic Centre High Street Uxbridge UB8 1UW 01895 250111 www.hillingdon.gov.uk/planning Chief Executive & Corporate Director of Administration Ms Fran Beasley fbeasley@hillingdon.gov.uk 01895 250111 Deputy Director of Residents Services Nigel Dicker ndicker@hillingdon.gov.uk 01895 250566
Deputy Head of Development Management & Building Control Andrew Marx andrew.marx@islington.gov.uk 020 7527 2045 Head of Spatial Planning Sakiba Gurda sakiba.gurda@islington.gov.uk 020 7527 2731
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REFERENCE GUIDE
Chief Executive Ms Janet Senior janet.senior@lewisham.gov.uk 020 8314 8013 Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea The Town Hall Hornton Street London W8 7NX
Development Manager Geoff Whittington geoff.whittington@lewisham.gov.uk
020 7361 3000 planning@rbck.gov.uk
020 8891 1411 www.richmond.gov.uk/planning
Chief Executive Barry Quirk barry.quirk@rbck.gov.uk 020 7361 2991 Executive Director of Planning & Borough Development Graham Stallwood graham.stallwood@rbck.gov.uk 020 7361 2612
Chief Executive Paul Martin paul.martin@richmondandwandsworth.gov.uk 020 8871 6001 London Borough of Merton Merton Civic Centre London Road Morden Surrey SM4 5DX 020 8545 3837 www.merton.gov.uk/planning Chief Executive Ged Curran chief.executive@merton.gov.uk 020 8545 3332
Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames Guildhall 2 High Street Kingston Upon Thames KT1 1EU 020 8547 5002 www.kingston.gov.uk/planning
Assistant Director Traffic & Engineering Nick O’Donnell nick.o’donnell@richmondandwandsworth.gov. uk Deputy Director Highway Operations & Street Scene Kevin Power kevin.power@richmondandwandsworth.gov.uk
The London Borough of Tower Hamlets Mulberry Place 5 Clove Crecsent London E14 2BE 020 8364 5009 Chief Executive Will Tuckley will.tuckley@towerhamlets.gov.uk Divisional Director Planning & Building Control owen.whalley@towerhamlets.gov.uk 020 7364 5314 Strategic Planning Manager Adele Maher adele.maher@towerhamlets.gov.uk 020 7364 5375
Director of Community and Housing Hannah Doody hannah.doody@merton.gov.uk 020 8545 3680 The London Borough of Southwark 160 Tooley Street London SE1 2QH
The London Borough Of Waltham Forest Town Hall London E17 4JF
020 7525 3559 London Borough of Newham Newham Dockside 1000 Dockside Road London E16 2QU 020 8430 2000 www.newham.gov.uk/planning Chief Executive Kim Bromley-Derry kim.bromley-derry@newham.gov.uk
London Borough of Lambeth Phoenix House 10 Wandsworth Road London SW8 2LL
Director of Housing and Regeneration Brian Reilly brian.reilly@richmondandwandsworth.gov.uk
Director of Environment and Regeneration Chris Lee chris.lee@merton.gov.uk 020 8545 3051
Interim Chief Executive Roy Thompson roy.thompson@kingston.gov.uk 020 8547 5343 Head of Planning Lisa Fairmaner lisa.fairmaner@kingston.gov.uk 020 8470 4706
London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames Civic Centre 44 York Street Twickenham TW1 3BZ
Executive Head of Economic Development, Planning & Sustainability Eleanor Purser eleanor.purser@sutton.gov.uk
020 8496 3000 www.walthamforest.gov.uk
Chief Executive Eleanor Kelly eleanor.kelly@southwark.gov.uk 020 7525 7171 Strategic Director of Environment & Social Regeneration Deborah Collins deborah.collins@southwark.gov.uk 020 7525 7171
Director of Commissioning (Communities, Environment & Housing) Simon Litchford QPM simon.litchford@newham.gov.uk
Chief Executive Martin Esom martin.esom@walthamforest.gov.uk 020 8496 3000 Strategic Director, Corporate Development Rhona Cadenhead rhona.cadenhead@walthamforest.gov.uk 020 8496 8096 Director Regeneration & Growth Lucy Shomali lucy.shomali@walthamforest.gov.uk
Chief Executive Andrew Travers atravers@lambeth.gov.uk 020 7926 9677 Divisional Director for Planning, Regeneration & Enterprise Alison Young ayoung5@lambeth.gov.uk 020 7926 9225 Divisional Director Housing Strategy & Partnership Rachel Sharpe rsharpe@lambeth.gov.uk
London Borough of Lewisham Town Hall Catford London SE6 4RU 020 8314 6000 www.lewisham.gov.uk/planning
www.planninginlondon.com
London Borough of Redbridge 128-142 High Road Ilford London IG1 1DD
The London Borough of Sutton 24 Denmark Road Carshalton SurreySM5 2JG
020 8554 5000 www.redbridge.gov.uk/planning
020 8770 5000 www.sutton.gov.uk/planning
Chief Executive & Head of Paid Service Andy Donald andy.donald@redbridge.gov.uk
Chief Executive Helen Bailey helen.bailey@sutton.gov.uk
Interim Head of Planning & Building Control Ciara Whelehan ciara.whelehan@redbridge.gov.uk
Assistant Director, Resources Directorate (Asset Planning, Management & Capital Delivery) Ade Adebayo ade.adebayo@sutton.gov.uk 020 8770 6349
Head of Inward Investment & Enterprise Mark Lucas mark.lucas@redbridge.gov.uk 020 8708 2143
The London Borough of Wandsworth Town Hall Wandsworth High Street London SW18 2PU 020 8871 6000 www.wandsworth.gov.uk
Strategic Director of Environment, Housing & Regeneration Mary Morrisey mary.morrissey@sutton.gov.uk 020 8770 6101
Chief Executive Paul Martin paul.martin@wandsworth.gov.uk 020 8871 6001 Head of Development Permissions Nick Calder ncalder@wandsworth.gov.uk 020 8871 8417 Environment and Community Services Directorate
Issue 110 July-September 2019
>>>
87
Mark Hunter mhunter@wandsworth.gov.uk 020 8871 8418 Head of Forward Planning and Transportation John Stone jstone@wandsworth.gov.uk 020 8871 6628
Chief Executive Stuart Love slove@westminster.gov.uk 020 7641 3091 City Of Westminster Westminster City Hall 64 Victoria Street London SW1E 6QP 020 7641 6500 www.westminster.gov.uk
Please notify any changes immediately by e-mail to planninginlondon@mac.com with the subject ‘planning in london directory’.
Director of Planning 020 7641 2519 Head of City Policy and Strategy Barry Smith bsmith@westminster.gov.uk 020 7641 3052
OTHER ORGANISATIONS Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk London SE1 2AA
Assistant director, planning Juliemma McLoughlin
Martin Cowie Strategic Planning Manager martin.cowie@london.gov.uk 020 7983 4309
020 7983 4000 www.london.gov.uk
Justin Carr Strategic Planning Manager justin.carr@london.gov.uk 020 7983 4895
Sadiq Khan Mayor of London mayor@london.gov.uk 020 7983 4000
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
Executive director, development, enterprise, environment Lucy Owen
Martin Scholar Strategic Planning Manager (Planning Frameworks) martin.scholar@london.gov.uk 020 7983 5750
Planning Officers Society The Croft, 81 Walton Road, Aylesbury HP21 7SN tel: 01296 422161
Design For London City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA info@designforlondon.gov.uk Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government 020 7944 4400 enquiries.br@communities.gsi.gov.uk planning.policies@communities.gsi.gov.uk Steve Quartermain, director, chief planner Simon Gallagher, director, planning
Keep taking your PiL! Please complete and mail the form below with cheque for £99.00 or click SUBSCRIBE at www.planninginlondon.com and pay with PayPal or credit card
Magazine of the Year (non-weekly) WINNER 2007 & finalist 2006 – 2012 & 2016 & 2018 International Building Press Womble Bond Dickinson, L B Ealing, MHCLG, Transport for London, LSE Library, Deloitte Real Estate, London Councils, Circle 33 Housing Trust, P&O Estates Ltd, Greenwich University, Steer Davies Gleave, City of Westminster, British Architectural Library, CBRE, Delancy, PDP London, Bellway Homes, Jestico & Whiles, London & Quadrant, Ecology Consultancy Ltd, Tesco Plc, Ramboll, Harvard College Library, London Wharf PLC, L B Islington, L B Greenwich, Sport England, Entec UK, Berkeley Group, Workspace Group, LB Bexley, RBK&C, RTPI, LB Bromley, PRP Architects, Durrants, British Land Company, L B Islington, CBE, GL Hearn, Holistic Group, White Young Green, Dentons, i-Document Solutions, Trowers & Hamlins, British Land, Montagu Evans, Hayes Davidson, Precise Media, NLP, L B Merton, Cluttons Planning, Speechly Bircham, TP Bennett, The London Society, Ebsco, Brockton Capital, Turley Associates, Munkenbeck & Partners, Terence O'Rourke, Assael Architecture, Metropolitan Workshop, PRP, Urban Research, AMEC, GLA, LCR Stations and Property, Terence O'Rourke, Rolfe Judd Planning, Southbank University, Lurot Brand, Slaughter and May, Alliance Planning, Harvard College Library, Cluttons, DPP, Savills, Henley Business School, Grosvenor, Sainsbury's, Hamptons International, Barratt Homes, National Grid, Network Rail, Foster + Partners, 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
88
Planning in London
I would like to subscribe from:
Go to planninginlondon.com > Subscribe and pay online with
last issue 109 April 2019 this issue 110 July 2019 next issue 111 October 2019 I enclose a cheque for £99.00 (no VAT, payable to Planning in London) I am interested in advertising in the Advice directory (£300 for one year) Please debit my card £106 (£99+£6.00 for credit card administration, no VAT payable) Card type:
VISA
MASTERCARD
Card number: Expiry date:
security no:
Signature:
Tel:
Name on card:
Up to 5 Email addresses:
Fax:
Firm: Card billing address:
Delivery address if different:
Post cheque to: Planning in London, Studio Petersham, Gorshott, 181 Petersham Road TW10 7AW for the attention of Natalie Barratt
SHAPING LONDON | SIR TERRY FARRELL
Royal Albert Dock – a modular masterplan Designing smart and thinking collaboratively ensures that this reimagined dock does not mimic the dereliction of its predecessor says Megan Jones
Megan Jones is an architect with Farrells on the RAD development
The Royal Albert Dock as reinvented by Farrells has been successfully unveiled in east London, creating an exemplar of adaptable architectural thinking, from its masterplan to its modular delivery. This is the first commercially-led phase of the 35-acre site set to be transformed into a gateway for international businesses looking to establish tangible roots on UK soil, whilst also contributing to the wider London market and demand. This former dockland will eventually be home to more than 4.7 million square feet of work, retail and residential space, where a rich mix of foreign and local enterprise will initiate a new, forward-driven era for this historic industrial site. Following a tendering process, ABP London, partnered with Farrells and the wider design team, were successful in re-imagining this vast swathe of underused land as a nucleus of international business; a vision fittingly reminiscent of its industrial past. Where previously the physical handling of goods had dictated the ebb and flow of activity on site, it would now be a digitised industry connecting the dock to the global market, reigniting its commercial value and carving out a new relevance for the modern age. A sensitive re-think was required to successfully create a place on a site hosting only the ghosts of its industrial past. A diverse mix of functions and flexible future uses were introduced to safeguard the development from becoming another banal business district on the outskirts of a city. In this context-less dock, Farrells sought to optimise on the natural transience of place from the outset, and the opportunity for unfettered growth it brings. The masterplan is divided into six phases, each offering a distinctive character for a sequential redevelopment for the area. But whilst there is a logic to a layering of the land over time, these disparate urban segments are designed with a cross-functionality at
www.planninginlondon.com
their core, allowing each phase to create a different place. This cross-stitch of constituent parts is a recurring trope across the masterplan; from the build-up of its key uses, to the reconfigurable office plates of its commercial plots, to the modularity of its panelised construction, it is a development which celebrates flexibility and adaptability over time. The first delivered phase boldly stakes its claim as a serious contender in the commercial market, with 700,000 square foot of lettable office space provided across 21 new buildings. Retail and leisure functions are interwoven alongside to supplement this burgeoning business centre, while two listed buildings also remain as emblems of the site’s past. Where both once served the physical labourers of the warehouses, they will now serve visitors to a new era for this digitised dock. The site’s primary east-west axis has been reprised; its footprint retained, its function transformed from that of practical transport route to activated high street. The waterfront quay, once the site of cargo being unloaded from waiting ships, is set to become a bustling pedestrian promenade – enlivening the water’s edge and infilling a vital link between the University of East London to the east and Newham Borough Council to the west. This holistic approach to place-making utilises existent qualities, such as the distinctive waterfront, and transforms them into characteristic points from which communities can organically thrive. The dock can confidently pinpoint itself as a destination in the developing regeneration corridor of the Thames, not only bolstering connectivity through and around the site itself, but as part of an outward-focused city- and river-wide outlook. The challenge of delivering the first phase lay in developing a flexible model to ensure success in an already well-saturated field >>>
Issue 110 July-September 2019
89
SHAPING LONDON | SIR TERRY FARRELL
RIGHT: llustrative Masterplan roof plan
>>> of commerce. This led to the development of two distinct office typologies, tailored to supplement one another’s growth and centred on the advent of an evolved model, the dockside townhouse. Unusual in the UK, but more often seen in Asia, these terraces, recognisably reminiscent of warehouses in their linearity, are vertically divided into ‘house’ units, but also offer a future horizontal split. This building block basis allows the user to assemble an office aligned to their specific working style and business development needs; providing a transformable kit of parts for workplace curation. Supporting these typologies is a large-plate office building. Its PREVIOUS PAGE:: generous floor area, wrapped around a central core, can be let Riverside night overall view per floor or split into multiple tenancies with minimal intrusion to the existing, efficient order of things. Options were integrated FAR RIGHT: within the structural fabric to facilitate future multi-floor lets, Street view and this, combined with the building’s rational grid, unlocks endless spatial iterations, freeing it from the constraints of a singular BELOW: commercial use. Night view Flexible to the growing needs of place, the adaptable town-
90
Planning in London
houses anticipate a greater future need for residential provision. Their floor to ceiling proportions and regularised window layouts enable their potential conversion to dwellings with minimised internal re-jigging. This modularity extends also to a further future, where the townhouses may make way for an entirely different function, as necessitated by the natural progression of place. The largely pre-cast build-up of the structure and cladding will allow this to occur in a sustainable manner; facilitating dismantling instead of demolishing. The Royal Albert Dock is humble in its creation of office space that is compact and functional. It is this efficiency that has enabled 50% of the overall site to be retained as accessible urban landscape. Of this space, eight new squares will be carved from gaps in the urban grain, providing recreational respite for both office workers and casual idlers alike. Two of these London squares have been delivered, actively contributing to the mayor’s desire to make the capital the world’s first national park city. The masterplan strives for reactive place-making that anticipates the future, without constraining it so rigidly that there remains no scope for alternative growth. The townhouses exist now as bold founding members of a new business district for London, yet in 20 years’ time, may instead befit a growing housing evolution. The scheme’s inherent adaptability has armed it with the tools to adapt and react to such future flux. By designing smart and thinking collaboratively, we can ensure that this reimagined dock does not mimic the dereliction of its predecessor, but finds a way to remain relevant. This project provides a lesson in lifetime modularity – where the principles of adaptability stretch from its urban-scale sensibilities to its construction methodology, providing a flexible flat-pack masterplan for modern life. n
ADVICE
Advice Planning and Advice We’re specialists in: • Commercial, residential and retail developments
The progressive, people-focussed transport consultancy
JOIN FREE! www.acarchitects.co.uk
The way the world moves. By Design. www.momentum-transport.com 020 7242 0228
town consultants tow n planning planning consul tants indi goplanning.com indigoplanning.com
Old O ld Bank Bank Chambers C ham bers London Road R oad Crowborough C row borough TN6 TN 6 2TT
• Cultural, heritage and educational schemes • Highways design and engineering • Sports venues and major events • Planning and modelling for stations, airports and interchanges • Public realm and urban design • Logistics, freight & operations planning • Transport master planning
Tel:!01892 01892 610408 610408 Telephone: Andy Stephens M rAndyMr Stevens andy@asplanning.co.uk andy@ asplanning.co.uk www.asplanning.co.uk w w w. asplanning.co.uk
Planning Services
Town Mill Mill Lane Dunmow Essex CM6 3SN
Tel: 01371 855855 Email: office@am-plan.com Web: www.am-plan.com
In our predominantly Green Belt area obtaining planning consent or change of use can be a challenge. Our team of Chartered Town Planners have years of experience, dealing with everything from a garden plot to a major housing development. They work closely with our land and new homes department and our agricultural and rural service department. Our specialist services include: Advice on general planning regulations and restrictions. Preparing, submitting and negotiating planning
applications. Advising on and submitting planning and enforcement appeals. Representations at Development Plan reviews. Advising on the planning potential for change of use of all buildings i.e. barn conversions etc. Dealing with listed building consent. Promoting residential and commercial development. Advising and representing parties on development options and other related interests in land. Advice on the development of strategic land.
Contact Planning: Call 01293 824354
Planning solved by Planning solved by design design Planning consultants and Pl anning consultants andarchitects architects www.bwcp.co.uk
w w w.bw cp.co.uk
www.planninginlondon.com
To advertise here for just £300 p.a. To advertise here forjust£300 p.a. please email planninginlondon@mac.com please em ailplanninginlondon@ m ac.com
Issue 102 110 July-September July-September 2017 2019 Issue
91 83
!
92