Planning in London issue 121 APRIL-JUNE 2022

Regulars

The Journal of the London Planning & Development Forum Issue 121 APRIL-JUNE 2022

LEADERS page 5 FINCH page 7 ¡PILLO! page 25 PLANNING PERFORMANCE p26 ROGERS page 45 FARRELLS: Shaping London p85

www.planninginlondon.com

DESIGN CODING a new culture of plan making? Riëtte Oosthuizen page 62 DENSITY, DIVERSITY AND PROXIMITY Spencer deGrey page 8 • DESIGN FOR WORKING FROM HOME Frances Holliss page 56 • THE RESILIENCE PLAN FOR LONDON planning for the apocalypse Nigel Moor page 59 • ADVICE page 91 THE ESSENTIAL GUIDE TO DEVELOPMENT IN THE CAPITAL

Please subscribe: page 84

CONTENTS

CONTENTS Page 5 LEADERS It’s a whole new context; Getting serious about carbon reduction; What now for the CaMKoX Arc 7 PAUL FINCH Uncertainty is the only certainty 8 ESSAY Density, diversity and proximity | Spencer deGrey

DENSITY, DIVERSITY AND PROXIMITY Spencer deGrey page 8

12 OPINIONS OPINION: beauty and planning reform | Richard Coleman The Levelling Up White Paper | Simon Atha Levelling Up | Ben Derbyshire The Planning Bill | Colin Brown The Nature Recovery green paper | Simon Ricketts Recovering from lockdowns | Valentine Quinio 20 CLIPBOARD Energy supply strategy; Permission finally granted for Bishopsgate Goodsyard;

LEVELLING UP WHITE PAPER Finding what’s unique about place | Guto Davies Bridging the gaps | Nicholas Falk Missions possible or impossible? | Owen Hawe and Atul Joshi from page 48

21 BRIEFING Limits to Class E Pemitted Development rights blocked; New Euston; 76 years and £50bn to fix the Palace of Westminster; A century of England from the air; Speeding appeals; London growing again; House of Illustration 25 ¡PILLO! Updates are lovely; Wheel failure; Noah’s Arc would never have been built; London-by-Sea; Planners for Putin; Future reforms ; Brilliant being old; Arc failure symptomatic; The meaning of lifestyle 26 PLANNING PERFORMANCE Applications fall, decisions up but fewer residential permissions granted 30 LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM The levelling up white paper & planning + implementing the London Plan Joint Planning Update conference with Cambridge University Society and the ACA 45 ANDREW ROGERS on the dynamics of planning reform

URBAN DESIGN With behavioural change comes urban shift | Federica Buricco Page 64

www.planninginlondon.com

48 LEVELLING UP WHITE PAPER Finding what’s unique about place | Guto Davies 50 Bridging the gaps | Nicholas Falk Continues 54 Missions possible or impossible? | Owen Hawe next page and Atul Joshi >>>

Issue 121 April-June 2022

3

CONTENTS CONTINUED

>>>

56 DESIGN FOR WORKING FROM HOME Frances Holliss 59 THE RESILIENCE PLAN FOR LONDON Planning for the apocalypse | Nigel Moor 62 DESIGN CODING a new culture of plan making? | Riëtte Oosthuizen

81 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REFERENCE GUIDE 84 SUBSCRIPTION ORDER FORM 85 SHAPING LONDON Sparking small actions | Farrells’ Alistair Backhouse 91 ADVICE

64 URBAN DESIGN With behavioural change comes urban shift | Federica Buricco 67 CITY OF SOUTHWARK 2033 Lars Christian 70 THE CLIMATE CRISIS When the wind blows | Simon Ricketts 72 DIGITAL PLANNING Beyond the rhetoric | Sue Chadwick 74 INDUSTRIAL LAND London’s need for more industrial land | Nicolas Bosetti 76 GREEN BELT Green belt protection bill and recent case law | David Churchill 78 BOOKS: Essential Urban Design by Rob Cowan reviewed by Andy Rogers Levelling Up Left Behind Places | Peter Tyler

Publishing Editors: Brian Waters, Paul Finch and Lee Mallett editor@planninginlondon.com, planninginlondon@mac.com ISSN 1366-9672 (PRINT) ISSN 2053-4124 (DIGITAL) Issue 121 APRIL-JUNE 2022 www.planninginlondon.com

Editorial, subscriptions and advertising: Tel: 07957871477 Email: planninginlondon@mac.com Contents ©Land Research Unit Ltd or as stated

The London Planning and Development Forum (LP&DF) 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 sectors.

The LPDF is administered by: Honorary Secretary: James Mitchell RIBA jm@axiomarchitects.co.uk

Agendas and minutes are at www.planninginlondon.com To attend please email the hon. secretary

Member bodies Association of Consultant Architects Association of London Borough Planning Officers/Planning Officers’ Society

4

Planning in London

Chairman: Brian Waters MA DipArch (Cantab) DipTP RIBA MRTPI ACArch ppACA FRSA Principal: The Boisot Waters Cohen Partnership brian@bwcp.co.uk Vice-Chairman: Jonathan Manns: Board Director, Head of Planning Rockell Property jm@rockwellproperty.co.uk

SPARKING SMALL ACTIONS Farrells’ Alistair Backhouse page 85

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.

London Councils British Property Federation Design Council CABE City of London Law Society Confederation for British Industry DLUHC Design for London/Urban Design London Historic England Environment Agency Greater London Authority Home Builders Federation Landscape Architecture SE London Chambers of Commerce & Industry London Forum of Amenity Societies London Housing Federation National Planning Forum ICE, RIBA, RICS, RTPI, UDAL, TCPA Transport for London

London University (The Bartlett, UCL) University of Westminster

 Made on a Mac

Affiliated members: Planning Aid for London London Metropolitan University THE LP&DF IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE LONDON SOCIETY

LEADERS

LEADERS

It’s a whole new context Long-term London’s success is dependent on its environment

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

Just as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change announced a ‘now or never’ moment in the dash to a low carbon economy and society, our energy bills went through the roof, for all the reasons we know about, causing a significant surge in the rising tide of inflation eroding our ability to pay for anything.

Hitch that to a changing demographic produced by an ageing population, reducing birth rates, less inward migration, and the levelling-up agenda diverting investment up north, our ability to actually focus on mitigating climate change in the capital becomes even more challenging.

The point is that the ‘context’ of London in its widest sense, post-Brexit, post-pandemic, and possibly postglobalisation as the world divides into uncooperative and sanction-minded democratic and autocratic camps, is likely to be radically different from the previous four decades. We may be looking at a significant ‘postgrowth’ deflationary era for London once we’ve assimilated what happened in the pandemic.

London’s citizens will have less disposable money. Residential and commercial rents are likely to stabilise and fall, and as interest rates rise, the capital value of assets will also fall. The rest of the country has seen continuing house price rises, those in the capital, particularly in the centre, have seen reductions or little growth, although in London’s suburbs, prices increased during the pandemic, implying a future redistribution of activity.

While supply of new affordable housing is still insufficient in London, rising interest rates will nevertheless reduce demand, because these hack at the key driver of prices – people’s desire and ability to borrow and pay more for homes.

Some of this new economic and environmental context will be welcome. We must ameliorate climate change, whatever the cost. Stabilised or diminishing housing costs in terms of rents and prices will be welcomed by an increasing proportion of the younger population who have been excluded from home ownership and renting in more central areas. And, who knows, increasing levels of supply may actually begin to reduce prices.

What sort of things should London’s planning system be addressing in this new context? Long-term London’s success is dependent on its environment. The Mayor’s London Environment Strategy of May 2018 still makes sense. Whether all 33 boroughs’ environmental policies seek strict delivery of its ambitions in individual planning applications, in urban design, architectural and building performance terms is more difficult to measure. More clarity and definition is perhaps required of applicants.

The more homes that can be built, the better London will preserve and grow its economic drivers. The more flexible we can be about permitting different uses to occupy land and buildings, the more they will attract economic activity to sustain social and economic goals. London’s planning has to become better at identifying trends and accommodating them in a more testing global economic context.

Assuming of course we manage to avoid Mutually Assured Destruction.. n

Getting serious about carbon reduction It has been a curious fact that despite the climate change debate and the commitments to net zero construction and development, there has been virtually no formal attempt to monitor or analyse planning applications in respect of these matters, except in the sense that they need to meet Building Regulations.

Indeed, there seems to have been an assumption that the planning system as a whole, and individual officers, have the skills and authority to magically enforce COP targets and the provisions in the UK of the Climate >>> Change Act.

www.planninginlondon.com

Issue 121 April-June 2022

5

LEADERS

>>>

But is it reasonable to blame planning and planners for failures to date? No. Under-funded, understaffed and under-appreciated, this was never going to be a task which could be taken on board, using existing resources to address what are complex and challenging issues. Moreover, it is doubtful whether it should be planners who are tasked with carbon and other environmental assessments, never having been trained to do so. It would make far more sense to make this the province of building control, and to fund as necessary the assessment programme.

However, there is another side to carbon reduction strategies which is the potential innovation and creativity that they may trigger – in other words it is not just about leaping yet another hurdle in the way of planning permissions, but seizing an opportunity to launch proactive initiatives to help both applicants through the process, and to generate interest and enthusiasm for the programmes on the part of the wider public.

The City of London is taking a very positive lead here, with the creation of its ‘Skills for a Sustainable Skyline Taskforce’ which will look at ‘defining and addressing skills gaps around the construction, retrofit and maintenance of low-carbon commercial buildings in Central London boroughs’. All power to its elbow.

It is worth remembering that London’s transformational planning and development programmes, historically, were largely triggered by disease, fire, pollution and war. Unfortunately that is still the case, but we can add the additional catastrophic element of climate change to an unhappy mix. If there is any sort of silver lining in this heavy cloud, it is the fact that decisions taken under intense pressure have worked.

We worked out how to deal with fire (a lesson we are, alas, having to re-learn); we embanked the Thames to fight cholera; we introduced the Clean Air Acts; and nationally we reduced carbon emissions by 50 per cent in recent decades even though the economy doubled in size.

London may be able to respond to crisis as it has in the past, by pursuing positive change rather than becoming cynical and defeatist. n

What now for the CaMKoX Arc? This is an opportunity to dust off the still extant New Towns Act 1946 and form a ‘Strategic Development Corporation’

6

Planning in London

A government decision to shelve a strategic plan to create a British rival to Silicon Valley connecting Oxford and Cambridge risks costing the UK economy £50bn. In October 2018, the government response to a 2016 National Infrastructure Commission report supported the ambition to build up to one million homes by 2050 to maximize the economic growth of the Arc. Significant funding for both east–west rail and the expressway was announced and indicated future commitments to local partners, including universities, and to the appointment of an independent business chair for the Arc, and a ministerial champion to ‘facilitate co-ordination across Whitehall’.

In March 2019, the MHCLG released a report titled Oxford–Cambridge Arc: Government Ambition and Joint Declaration between Government and Local Partners. This announced the establishment of the Arc Leaders Group (ALG), comprising local authorities, LEPs, EEH and 10 universities. It emphasizes the role of housing delivery in realizing the economic potential of the Arc, and four thematic areas to do this: productivity, place-making, connectivity and the environment. “The potential development of the Arc resonates strongly with stated commitments by the government towards infrastructure development, science-based growth, support for research and development, design and place-making, and accelerated housing delivery” says Professor Dave Valler of Oxford Brookes. The levelling up department says it recognises "the importance of the Oxford-Cambridge Arc as a globally renowned hub of innovation" and is due to publish the results of an October 2021 consultation on delivering an overarching planning framework for the project "in due course".

The question was raised with Joanna Averley, chief planning officer, at the recent Planning Update conference [see our report on page 30]. Asked was this change of heart a sign of ‘levelling down’ in the S.E. she advised we ‘watch this space’. There has been local opposition to the housebuilding ambition of the concept partly the result of lack of local engagement and poor presentation. Nick Raynsford for the TCPA comments: “because the overall process lacks clear legal definition or statutory underpinning, there is no effective participation or governance framework” which leads to a strong public response.

This is an opportunity to dust off the still extant New Towns Act 1946 and form a new kind of ‘Strategic Development Corporation’ by tweaking the Act and defining the site, which embraces 17 local authorities. It will need powers to acquire land at existing use value, and call-in planning powers for planning applications which affect its own strategic policies. The LPAs will be represented on the Corporation and, like the new towns, it will be given a 25 year deadline and powers to deliver.

How to finance it? Homes England is sitting on millions in profits inherited from the new towns. This can be used to fund the infrastructure and the land acquisition. Devolution, levelling-up and strategic spatial planning. n

OPINION: UNCERTAINTY | PAUL FINCH

Uncertainty is the only certainty

FINCH

The atmosphere in London is febrile, writes Paul Finch With the ongoing financial implications of Covid, rising energy prices, a European war, and inflation rates rising to levels not seen since the 1980s, these are worrying times for even the most optimistic forecaster.

So while big investment deals in the London market continue (the latest being the £1 billion-plus purchase of the UBS building, designed by Make), the concern is over what is going to happen to building cost inflation, as opposed to the general rate.

Some quantity surveyors are now assuming up to 15 per cent in their assessment of new construction, making some projects distinctly marginal. Given everything else that is happening, why take the risk of development? This will inevitably lead to a slowdown in commissions, which in turn suggests that the architectural employment market, which has been remarkably resilient over the past two years, is likely to take a hit, even though skilled and experienced practitioners are in short supply.

The idea that green policies can transform the economy, even if they should, is currently fading in the face of economic and energy realities. A recent survey suggested that four out of ten employers would not pay higher rents for offices with strong green credentials – and in any event, the enjoyment generated by working-from-home arrangements suggests that demand for space is unlikely to grow.

All another reason for developers to be cautious about embarking on ambitious new projects.

Meanwhile the biggest project in London, the retrofit of the Palace of Westminster (ie the UK Parliament), seems to be in a state of limbo, following the abandonment of the development corporation-type supervisory body which was supposedly in charge of development. The problem here, apart from the £5 billion to £10 billion cost, is that Parliament has never got to grips with what it wants from its renewed estate: a replica of what already exists?

Possibly, but that would scarcely take account of the changes that devolved national parliaments in Scotand and Wales, plus technology (tested during

www.planninginlondon.com

the Covid pandemic) now offer to legislatures.

Moreover, the constitutional make-up of the UK has been slowly unravelling, since the Blair government introduced changes for reasons of party, rather than national, interest. The existing Charles Barryplanned building, as my WAF colleague Jeremy Melvin has often pointed out, is an architectural description of the 19th century constitution, with monarchy, hereditary House of Lords and elected House of Commons in their appropriate places. That constitution, in practical terms, no longer exists.

What would a new architecture look like were it to reflect what we now have?

This raises another problem, which is the unsatisfactory nature of our second chamber, a body with a vast number of political has-beens, no-show vanity peers and a minute number of hereditaries. Which comes first, constitutional reform or a building?

And how, one might ask, does this vast anticipated expenditure on a London landmark chime with the government’s much vaunted ‘levelling up’ agenda? This involves exporting various government

It is not commonly understood just how big a proportion of the national economy construction and property represent offices from the capital to provincial locations, giving local mayors a bit more authority, and lubricating the process with what remains of the public finances.

Needless to say, the Midlands and Northern towns and cities which will be the beneficiaries of these policies are not falling over themselves to say thank you. For one thing, many of them are Labour-controlled, so whatever a Conservative government may offer will never be sufficient. There is a faint hope that the geological accident of vast shale deposits under the north-west of the country will be brought into play because of the energy crisis, thereby vastly

Paul Finch is programme director of the World Festival of Architecture and joint publishing editor of Planning in London

increasing the financial wealth of the northern regions, but it would be unwise to count on it. The prejudice against fracking remains widespread.

Government commitment to green policies has expressed itself in a minor way, via a new tax measure reducing VAT on environmentally friendly improvements to dwellings (essentially insulation).

But the realisation that we should not be relying on Russian or Mid-east oil and gas to provide us with heat and light has also triggered a renewed interest in nuclear power, at least in the mind of Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who has asked for new plants to be development at ‘warp speed’.

Whatever happens is going to take time (even at warp speed), during which the built environment sector will become a focus of attention for the Treasury and economists generally. It is not commonly understood just how big a proportion of the national economy construction and property represent.

Construction and its ancillary activities (for example building product manufacture) comprise about 10 per cent. The value of development and investment is hard to put an exact figure on because of definitions, but it is massive, affecting not just the development and transactional market, but the operations of pension funds and other financial institutions, which regard property – with the exception of shopping centres these days – as a safe haven. It is not looking quite so safe at the moment.

Of course one tries not to be too pessimistic in these troubled times. But always remember the cynic’s definition of a pessimist: someone who lives with an optimist. n

Issue 121 April-June 2022

7

ESSAY: DENSITY, DIVERSITY AND PROXIMITY | SPENCER DEGREY

In this important essay Spencer de Grey says we need cities more than ever to bring people together to innovate and tackle the challenges we are facing

Density, diversity and proximity: the three qualities of an innovative city When I was asked to pick my favourite building in London earlier this year, I chose the 1943 Plan of the Social and Functional Groupings of London as a deliberate provocation.

Conceived by planners Sir Leslie Patrick Abercrombie and John Henry Forshaw, and illustrated with striking clarity by Arthur Ling, the diagrammatic plan shows London’s distinct yet interdependent urban villages and industrial districts radiating from the capital’s historic hearts, the West End and the City.

Obviously, the Plan is not a building, but I chose it because good architecture begins by responding to its social and phys-

ical context. For this piece, I have been asked to discuss the architecture of innovation, and once again, I want to cast the net beyond architecture and focus on what makes cities innovative.

Innovation is a product of the exchange of ideas between people, and the built environment can either improve or impede the flow of knowledge. At Foster + Partners, our clients, be they universities or corporations or city governments, approach us to design innovative spaces. There is, of course, no one-size-fits-all approach, but there are three spatial qualities

Illustration by Arthur Ling, 1943

8

Planning in London

that are universally applicable when designing spaces for innovation: density, diversity, and proximity.

Density Cities have always been the engines of innovation. As Edward Glaeser, the urban economist, wrote: “[i]deas move from person to person within dense urban spaces, and this exchange occasionally creates miracles of human creativity.” Urbanists from Jane Jacobs to Richard Florida have long celebrated the benefits of urban density in catalysing innovation, but it’s not urban density per se that creates innovation, but porous density which allows for a continuous flow of people, and by extension, of ideas.

A 2019 study by Maria P. Roche at the Georgia Institute of Technology showed that a ten percent increase in street density and connectivity is associated with a 1 percent increase in innovation. This hard data supports the soft observational analysis that dense urban environments like London’s Soho and Shoreditch – which comprise a mesh of human-scale streets and intimate public spaces – tend to foster more interactions between people, leading to greater exchange of knowledge and the strengthening of social networks. Evidently, Soho has been a driving force in London’s entertainment industry and Shoreditch in the tech-industry.

Perhaps not surprisingly, Roche’s study also found that areas with a higher density of amenities like bars and restaurants are also positively correlated with innovation because colleagues and collaborators who socialise together are more likely to develop a sense of trust and reciprocity, which are just as important as

www.planninginlondon.com

state-of-the-art facilities. It is little surprise then that both Soho and Shoreditch are key nightlife hotspots in London as the cornucopia of cafes and bars, pubs and restaurants function not only as collective canteens and watering holes for local workers, but also attract other Londoners and visitors, making these districts vibrant around the clock and across the week.

Diversity Density of people and amenities is fundamental, but it alone cannot sustain innovation. It needs to be combined with a diversity of expertise and organisations to help spur innovation. Alfred Marshall, the celebrated Cambridge economist, coined the term ‘industrial district’ in 1890 to describe the innovative power of the clustering of interconnected industries and institutions which are at once cooperating and competing.

Silicon Valley is an example of an industrial district par excellence. It has been so successful that the term Silicon Valley has become a synecdoche for the high-tech sector, and the word Silicon has become a powerful brand for other high-tech districts around the world: Silicon Savannah in Nairobi, Silicon Sandbar in Cape Cod, and of course Silicon Roundabout in London, to name just a few. Whilst the Valley has become synonymous with industry giants such as Apple, it maintains a thriving ecosystem of start-ups, research centres, public institutions, and venture capital firms.

At the turn of the nineteenth century Detroit looked a lot like Silicon Valley in the sixties and seventies, with a hive of small, dynamic firms and independent suppliers. But the consolidation of the automobile ecosystem into General Motors and Ford by the 1930s hindered the growth of new ideas because the network of small-scale entrepreneurs could no longer compete with the behemoths, and the atmosphere of innovation was replaced with an atmosphere of efficiency.

The decline of Detroit is a cautionary tale against industrial monopolies. To protect innovation, industrial districts must safe-

ABOVE: Churchill College Dining Hall credit: ACME

LEFT: Soho street credit: Bex Walton

Spencer de Grey is head of design at Foster + Partners Article first published in the magazine of the Cambridge >>> University Land Society

Issue 121 April-June 2022

9

ESSAY: DENSITY, DIVERSITY AND PROXIMITY | SPENCER DEGREY

RIGHT: Building 20 credit: 1964 MIT Alum Class

>>> guard a diversity of organisations of different scales and expertise across the public and private sector.

The benefits of close-knit diversity of expertise are also seen in university towns. The University of Cambridge, for instance, has produced 110 Nobel Laureates, accounting for 83 per cent of the UK’s total. The high-tech laboratories, well stocked libraries, and capacious lecture halls are of course a part of the architecture of innovation, but it is also the inter-disciplinary dining halls where the seeds of innovation are planted, much like the pubs in Soho and bars in Shoreditch. The recent proliferation of the private sector and venture capital in the city is helping to finance and scale the innovative ideas to the global stage.

Communication technologies have eradicated distance, enabling someone in Cambridge, UK to collaborate with someone in Cambridge, Massachusetts in real time. But this virtual proximity has not replaced the value of physical proximity. In fact, as telecommuting has become easier and cheaper, innercity real estate has become more coveted and expensive because knowledge-sector industries and workers appreciate the value of chance encounters and the tacit knowledge that is shared simply by being in the same place at the same time. The fact that Silicon Valley is at once the most technologically literate and yet the most expensive place to live in the United States is irrefutable proof of the fact that there is a premium on physical proximity.

On an architectural scale, MIT’s Building 20 is a renowned example of the benefits of proximity. Designed in the space of an afternoon as a temporary war-time facility to develop radar systems, the building remained intact after the war becoming a spill-over facility for unlikely departmental neighbours such as Nuclear Science and the Linguistics department. These unlikely collisions proved to be a boon for its resident scholars who made legendary strides in electronics, physics and linguistics.

Noam Chomsky remarked: “It looked like it was going to fall apart. There were no amenities, the plumbing was visible, and the windows looked like they were going to fall out. But it was extremely interactive.” The building was so beloved that when it was finally demolished in 1998, some 200 leading figures NEXT PAGE: Willis Faber & Dumas credit: Tim Street Porter

RIGHT: Watling Street credit: Dominic Martin

10

Planning in London

attended the funeral of the “plywood palace” that bore so many ideas.

The desire to create a highly interactive environment that encourages chance encounters was a key driver for our design of the Bloomberg Headquarters in London. From the sculptural Vortex at the entrance, to the distinctive hypotrochoid stepped ramp, characterised by its smooth continuous three-dimensional loop, to the radial desking system organised around collaborative clusters, the office building was designed to break down the figurative walls between teams. This approach to designing architecture that nudges colleagues to interact is part of a long lineage stemming from the Willis Faber & Dumas headquarters in Ipswich, completed three generations earlier in 1975. The building’s open-plan offices are spread over three floors connected by escalators that climb up and down the central atrium. The three-storey escalators serve as an interior High Street for the workers of Willis Faber & Dumas, a place to see and be seen and stop for serendipitous conversations.

When we were designing the Bloomberg Headquarters, together with the client we wanted the building to be a “good neighbour,” to give something back. The biggest gesture was the reinstatement of Watling Street, an old Roman Road that once ran through the site, and the addition of cafes and restaurants at the foot of the building. Curated by food critic Richard Vines, the eateries transformed the office building into an engaging slice of the City, much like the tight-knit and restaurant-lined streets of Soho and Shoreditch. It is easy to forget that the origins of the word company come from the Italian ‘con pania’, meaning ‘with bread’, which is a useful reminder that eating together is critical to cultivating collegiality and camaraderie, and ultimately, collaboration.

Over the past eighteen months many have called the future of cities into question. Yet we need cities more than ever to bring people together to innovate and tackle the challenges we are facing. From the architectural-scale of buildings that promote interactions across teams and disciplines, to the urbanscale of streets and squares that promote interactions across organisations and communities, designers play a crucial role in innovation by encouraging the exchange of ideas. Whether designing new buildings or reworking old ones, architects must begin by peeling back the red line boundary of their site and embracing the wider context both in terms of form and function. This is why the 1943 Abercrombie and Forshaw post-war strategic vision for London is just as relevant now as it was in the post-war era because it reminds us of the importance of urban density, functional diversity and the strategic proximity between complementary industries and sectors. n

Assets as smart as you are.

The world is changing rapidly, and you’re expected to be smarter, faster, more connected, more predictive, and accountable for your assets and operations.

Our new brand – Brightly – represents who we are and what we stand for. We are the global leader in intelligent asset management solutions, and our purpose is to power smarter assets and sustainable communities.

Discover a new world of asset management at confirm.solutions/welcome-to-brightly

OPINION: BEAUTY AND PLANNING REFORM | RICHARD COLEMAN

Me, beauty and planning reform Richard Coleman emphasises that ‘townscape’ and ‘heritage’ are invariably interlinked As Secretaries of State come and go, frequently tampering with the planning system in fits and starts, half doing the job and then moving on, we are bound to find in its operation as many barriers to achieving beautiful places and buildings as we find authentic guidance on its realisation. Part of an unrealised plan is actually in place and it is called ‘Beauty’. It has become a policy requirement for the first time alongside what in my view is its counter force, ‘design codes’; a mistaken method of achieving it. National government bodies have been set up to advise on both ‘beauty’ and ‘design codes’; the former yet to be fully defined and the latter yet to be proven.

While architect’s have long been encouraged in their Design and Access Statements to set out why they believe their designs are good, it very often falls to others to objectively assess design quality.

Design quality has proven to be a better term than

12

Planning in London

beauty. When there is one on the team, the townscape and heritage consultant, of which Citydesigner is one, generally takes on the role to objectively assess design quality. At Citydesigner we today celebrate 25 years of having done this for hundreds of schemes. In the early days we produced the first Environmental Statement in the UK for an urban building where design quality as a cultural imperative figured centrally to the building’s acceptability within an historic context. That was for the Gherkin, in the City of London, on which we collaborated with Foster and Partners, and which demolished the damaged Grade II* listed Baltic Exchange.

The role of objectively assessing design quality can draw on guidance from a number of sources including the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment(CABE) and Historic England. My foundation is a book I helped to write, edited by

Richard Coleman is founder, Citydesigner Townscape and Heritage Consultancy www.citydesigner.com

Sherban Cantacuzino CBE while at the Royal Fine Art Commission (RFAC) called ‘What Makes a Good Building’ commissioned by central government and published in 1994. Its evidence was the schemes coming before it and out of it developed a comprehensive set of criteria still of relevance today, at the aesthetic end of the discussion. The RFAC was the sole national design review body from 1924 until its transformation to CABE in 1999, two years after I left it. Soon design review expanded into multiple panels across the nation but CABE still has a central role though now part of the Design Council. In the RFAC book, Sherban, it’s Secretary from 1979 to 1994, reminded us that ‘Beauty is a matter of consensus but an absolute value, distinguish between what you like and what you know to be good’.

It is imperative in the design panels of today, that ‘what you like as a panel member, is left at the door step, so to speak, and that analysis and judgement with an open mind should prevail.’ This was the practice at the RFAC where 18 commissioners appointed by the Queen met twice monthly to look at schemes. Beauty when confined to the eye of the beholder, is only of use to the beholder!

So this question of assessing design quality, aca ‘beauty’, needs debate and discussion but also an understanding of what considerations the designer has made. It requires skills of observation and a three-dimensional imagination in order to interpret drawings, simulations and far too rarely today, real physical three dimensional models. Most of all it requires a method.

I have adapted an observational exercise I have practiced for many years and have developed to guide Citydesigner’s approach to this task. It’s a way of methodically observing and understanding a phenomena, whether existing or imagined from

four standpoints. It was mirrored, long after I began using it, by English Heritage’s ‘values’ system set out in their well-received Conservation Practice document. There they listed ‘evidential - historic - artistic and - communal’ values. My version begins with studying the physical facts about the thing being studied ie the definable evidence. Second is the response the thing makes to time both past, present and future including time/rhythms such as night/day, seasons and the rhythmic activities of the users. Third is the emotional response to the thing, which may vary from person to person but about which there is often a general artistic consensus.

Finally, what is the archetype of the phenomena, what can all agree its essence is in a communal sense; what is the ‘ego’ of the thing. This exercise can reveal a lot about a phenomena, building, place or object. Not all that is discovered by this method is necessarily relevant to a particular project, but it often helps lead to connections, parallels and conceptual origins of the thing being considered.

Most of the talented people working with me over the last 25 years have consciously or unconsciously benefitted from this deepening of understanding through careful observation and recording.

In the case of analysing an existing structure or urban scene it can help understanding the thinking applied by the original designer and this stands the practitioner in a valuable position when advising how a new intervention might respond. Many of my talented trainees have gone on to head up other townscape and heritage teams often within a planning consultancy. It remains a young profession best served by those trained in architecture, urban design

and heritage.

It is also a profession which clearly combines ‘townscape’ and ‘heritage’ as the two are invariably interlinked. It surprises me that in many major schemes clients appoint separate consultancies for these inseparable functions. Even more when big consultancies treat the two separately and even have the Manchester office do one and the London office do the other, for example. What really helps a big scheme in sensitive surroundings is an holistic approach where heritage and townscape are not only embraced together but that the professional doing the embracing is also able to collaborate through the design development phase with the urban designer and architect. There is, however, no substitute for a high level of design skills pursuing the design while responding to continual townscape and heritage assessment through the whole design phase.

So Citydesigner is still going strong, serving clients, training a new profession, and celebrating beauty in the built environment. Design Codes are a whole different essay of contention! n

FAR LEFT: 30 St. Mary Axe (2000), The Gherkin, City of London, Foster and Partners. Beauty accepted by all as an acceptable replacement for the bombed Grade II* listed Baltic Exchange.

TOP:: Chiswick Curve (2015), Hounslow, Studio Egret West. The inspector approved it on the basis of its ‘beauty’- the Secretary of State refused it on the basis that he didn’t find it to be ‘beautiful’.

LEFT:: Holburne Museum (2006), Bath, Eric Perry Architects where authentic contrast in style and materiality was seen to be a beautiful addition to a Grade I listed building in a World Heritage site.

www.planninginlondon.com

Issue 121 April-June 2022

13

OPINION: THE LEVELLING UP WHITE PAPER | SIMON ATHA

The Levelling Up White Paper This Government has lost both its ambition and the political capital to follow through on the reforms that it proposed, says Simon Atha The Levelling Up White Paper acknowledged that reform of the planning system is required; but bearing in mind the strong commitments made to overhauling the planning system there was a startling absence of detail. A policy vacuum exists that continues to create uncertainty, impacting on the progress of Local Plans and the delivery of news homes in particular.

The development industry has long been pushing for the ‘principle’ of development to be established through the Local Plan process. This would involve each local planning authority creating growth areas in their Local Plans, within which any sites would automatically be granted outline planning permission for the principle of development following adoption of the Plan. The 2020 Planning White Paper, Planning for the Future, which until recently was set to be the basis for a radical new Planning Bill, proposed that after adoption of the Local Plan there would be “no need to submit a further planning application to test whether the site can be approved”.

Many backbench MPs had raised concerns that the proposals would mean reduced scrutiny by local elected councillors over individual planning applications and less public involvement in the planning process. Defeat at the Chesham and Amersham byelection last year also focused Ministers’ minds over planning reform and development on greenfield land in particular. The Levelling Up White Paper’s focus on brownfield prioritisation is not new and has been the policy of successive Governments over the last thirty years. Whilst brownfield sites are important, unfortunately the strategy of ‘brownfield first’ has failed to tackle the housing crisis, in fact it exacerbated the crisis. And the air of uncertainty around planning reforms will make matters yet worse to come.

Now Michael Gove has apparently told MPs that the Government will not bring forward a Planning Bill, and that the growth zone proposals have been scrapped. According to the Daily Telegraph, Gove told 45 Conservative MPs at a private meeting, "That he had decided not to proceed with a major separate piece of planning legislation to put the reforms into law. Instead, more limited changes to planning rules will be incorporated as part of a

14

Planning in London

Michael Gove has apparently told MPs that the Government will not bring forward a Planning Bill, and that the growth zone proposals have been scrapped.

He told Conservative MPs at a private meeting "That he had decided not to proceed with a major separate piece of planning legislation to put the reforms into law. Instead, more limited changes to planning rules will be incorporated as part of a Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill, which will be set out in the Queen's Speech in the spring."

Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill, which will be set out in the Queen's Speech in the spring."

It remains to be seen whether the more controversial aspects of the White Paper are being watered down following back pedalling from a Government trying to appease MPs following months of firefighting on all fronts.

The likely ‘tidying up’ is a stark change of direction following the 2019 election where the Government, riding high on the back of political success in the North and Midlands, put forward an ambitious reform of the planning system. Levelling

Simon Atha is Associate Director, Boyer (part of Leaders Romans Group)

Up promised to deliver improvements to those areas of the country that have undeniably been left behind following decades of a lack of investment and strategic thinking.

Roll on forward three years later and this Government, like many previous Governments, has found that planning continues to be a political hot potato. Ambitious reforms reduced to a bit of ‘tidying up’ of the planning system through levelling up legislation, are not what is required to address the real issues of inequality, a lack of productivity and economic competitiveness from those regions in the country that have been left behind.

Stability and leadership at the top are also required. There have been six Secretaries of State for Communities and Local Government and 12 Housing Ministers since the Conservatives took power in 2010. The revolving door that we have seen at the housing ministry has not helped provide the stability and focus required to successfully understand and tackle the housing and planning brief.

Ambition, joined-up thinking across Government, investment in local authority planning departments and following through on genuine reform to the planning system are what is needed now to ‘level up’. That means delivering decent affordable homes, in the right locations, close to economic opportunities, where people want to live and work.

What is evident is that this Government has lost both its ambition and the political capital to follow through on the reforms that it proposed when it first took office. It is a huge political challenge and one that the Levelling Up White Paper does not go far enough to address. n Simon Atha is an Associate Director in Boyer’s Midlands office and is involved in leading on strategic residential and commercial projects for clients across the Midlands region

OPINION: LEVELLING UP | BEN DERBYSHIRE

This is not how to level up the country Gove’s 12-point plan is hardly the Roosevelt New Deal we were promised, writes Ben Derbyshire There is no denying the necessity for levelling up.

Disparities between the haves and have-nots have been growing for decades. Just recently, behaviour in the Westminster bubble has only served to accentuate the disparity. Even if it were not for the bad taste left in voters’ mouths, we are already two years into a parliamentary term for a party for whom ending inequalities was supposed to be a manifesto centre-piece. The danger for government is that Gove’s announcement is already too late.

To regain support that brought its landslide majority in time for the next election, government must be mindful that structural changes can be controversial and take forever to implement. The 2030 timeline for 12 missions on productivity, education and transport is well beyond the current parliamentary term. The electorate will be quick to see through short-term, inevitably superficial, re-allocations of cash with only transient outcomes. Regions, towns and cities targeted by this policy have seen cuts that the existing £10bn commitment in no way restores – and the similar sum written off over wasted PPE spending puts the investment into perspective.

The trailed plan for more local mayors with access to funds already allocated and the long overdue regulation of privately rented homes seems anaemic in comparison to the challenge. Further demand-side stimulus for home buying will boost prices and increase private debt. Sure, local government can and should be improved. The scandal of exploitative rentier slum housing should never have

been tolerated in the first place. But could these changes honestly be described as ‘red meat’ sufficient to satisfy the bloodthirsty Tory backbenchers with fragile ‘blue wall’ majorities? These MPs need impacts that will not only impress voters in the short term but have a convincing chance of sustained value. Government needs a new settlement with local authorities, and councils in turn need to strike a new deal with their citizens.

Let’s start from the bottom up. Communities must have more say in plan-making and development management, not outside local democratic accountability, as proposed in last year’s Planning White Paper, but as part of the process. Planning reform and levelling up are linked by the perception of local people that investment in development and infrastructure is in their beneficial interest, because that’s how their satisfaction with the outcomes will translate into votes. A commitment to much better local engagement on plan-making, including transparency and digital consultation, is a quick win with long-term benefits. Likewise, perceptions can only be improved by a requirement that developers commit to meaningful consultation on individual schemes, demonstrating how development meets local and national plan and policy criteria.

None of the above is possible within the current cash-strapped constraints on local planning authorities and the skilled resources they can afford. Local mayors alone are not enough – there’s a campaign in Bristol to scarp theirs. Local planning authorities need more resources and autonomy. Westminster really must get over its instinctive mistrust of local

HTA sketch of Superbia for the Policy Exchange Street Votes report

www.planninginlondon.com

Ben Derbyshire chairs HTA Design LLP and is past president of the RIBA. He also chairs Historic England’s Historic Places Panel

democracy and swallow a prejudice that inhibits a more generous delegation of authority that, yes, may favour councils led by opposition parties.

It is critical that policy is thoroughly tested with impact assessments on our ability to meet the 2050 net zero target. In the structure of delegated power and control I am calling for, a critical prerequisite is that all investment is tested for its contribution to mitigating climate change and that no money is spent on anything that threatens the long-term future. That actually rules out quite a few of the lollipops that a Tory government might otherwise be thinking of to win back voters – new road schemes in particular.

We need to build a consensus about what form sustainable development should take. So long as direction emerges remote from local considerations, people will continue to believe that development decisions are being done to them, not made by them. There is ample evidence from neighbourhood planning that communities understand that new development can bring benefits. There is a slew of well-informed policy development around local control, from No Place Left Behind by Create Streets and Street Votes by Policy Exchange that the DLUHC would do well to adopt.

Irrespective of the growing sense that the governing elite exists in a bubble that insulates it from the experience of ordinary citizens, the only hope for a green economy based on sustainable development is that a population increasingly concerned for the welfare of successive generations, believes in good measure that people have made the choices that most directly affect them.

Levelling up prosperity and opportunity requires Westminster to level with local people, trusting in them to make the right decisions. What we have instead is no Rooseveltian ‘New Deal’. n First published in BDonline, with kind consent

Issue 121 April-June 2022

15

OPINION: THE PLANNING BILL | COLIN BROWN

The end of the Planning Bill There is a world of difference between the ‘tidying up’ now suggested, and the ‘radial reform’ proposed when the White Paper was first released, says. Colin Brown The rumour that the Government has finally condemned the Planning White Paper to the dustbin is disappointing but hardly a shock.

We now understand that there will be no Bill following the consultation on the White Paper published which in August 2020 (although the Government’s response is still anticipated following May’s local elections), and that instead reform to the planning system will be through a series of ‘tidying up’ measures that will be introduced via levelling up legislation.

For a sector that believed, back in August 2020, that the Planning for the Future White Paper would bring about radical reform, this back-tracking on several levels has created uncertainty.

The likelihood that the Government was proposing to scrap the Planning Bill which was announced in last year’s Queen's Speech had been on the cards for some time. In one of his first moves as Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities in September last year, Michael Gove paused progress of the policy to conduct a review. The following month the Conservative party chairman Oliver Dowden said that the Government was ‘looking again’ at the proposals within the White Paper, specifically the planned broad-brush approach to simplify strategic planning by ‘zoning’ land for Growth, Renewal or Protection.

This specific policy had already resulted in controversy, not least in the Chesham and Amersham byelection in June last year, when the Conservative

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

16

Planning in London

party lost a 16,000 majority primarily due to planning controversy. It was acknowledged then that voters were concerned over the perceived reduced public consultation that would come about as a result of zoning. Politicians stated that voters had been heard ‘loud and clear’ and that the by-election result represented a ‘warning shot’.

The introduction of zoning would have had a potentially significant impact on the planning system. Currently, Local Plans already allocate sites or designate land for specific uses, in a not dissimilar way to the proposed Renewal and Protect categories.

However, the automatic granting of planning permission and ‘permission in principle’ on land allocated for ‘Growth’ gave a strong impression that local authorities would have lost the ability to control development, alongside a considerable reduction in public consultation – something, as the by-election outcome demonstrates, would have been extremely unpopular with sections of the electorate.

So what does the Planning Bill’s replacement, the Levelling Up White Paper, propose for the planning of new homes?

Perhaps unsurprisingly, given the negative response to the intention to focus public consultation solely on the strategic planning process, rather than on individual planning applications, the Government has committed to strengthening engagement and improving democracy in planning.

Its commitment to ‘beauty’ and the proposed creation of an Office for Place are also a reaction to public displeasure in ‘identikit’ housing developments. Allied to the concept of ‘beauty’ is a commitment to ‘protect and enhance’ green spaces, specifically the Green Belt, to support environmental protection and the transition to Net Zero.

Local Plans should be made simpler and shorter, according to the White Paper. Presumably, this aims to increase the number of up-to-date Plans, and follows a growing number of local authorities having paused or halted their Local

Colin Brown is Head of Planning & Development, Carter Jonas

Plan process. Some were paused as a knee-jerk reaction to the Prime Minister’s strong opposition to greenfield development when speaking at October’s Conservative Party Conference which, our research demonstrated, caused Local Plans across the country brought to an abrupt halt. Other Local Plans have stalled due to environmental issues such as the moratoriums imposed in relation to water neutrality issues, and some due solely to political indecision.

The Levelling Up White Paper also refers to a model for a new infrastructure levy. This levy would ‘enable local authorities to capture value from development more efficiently, securing the affordable housing and infrastructure communities need.’

Additionally, it outlines ‘Project Speed’, intended to improve the delivery of critical major infrastructure projects, including new hospitals, schools and roads.

The vision which underpins the Levelling Up White Paper is positive; but is it anything other than a vision? Eighteen months on from the Planning White Paper, we had anticipated more substance but instead we have a new set of aspirations which may yet be dumbed down further through consultation and political wrangling, as was the case with the Planning White Paper.

There is a world of difference between the ‘tidying up’ now suggested, and the ‘radial reform’ proposed when the White Paper was first released.

Central to this was the Government’s determination that the housing needs of the nation, and particularly of younger people, needed to be front and centre, irrespective of the political fall-out, and that the Government was absolutely committed to delivering 300,000 new homes per annum. That now seems a pipedream. n

OPINION: THE NATURE RECOVERY GREEN PAPER | SIMON RICKETTS

The Nature Recovery Green Paper Is the Nature Recovery Green Paper the answer? (and if so what was the question?) asks Simon Ricketts My last two blog posts have been on the huge and urgent challenge arising for the English planning system arising from the advice being given

by Natural England in relation to potential effects on special areas of conservation and special protection areas (see my 18 March 2022 blog post New NE Nutrient Neutrality & Recreational Impact Restrictions (+ DEFRA Nature Recovery Green Paper) and my 26 March 2022 blog post More On That Natural England Advice). We also held a clubhouse discussion on 29 March 2022 and you can listen back here.

Undoubtedly, the environmental protection and assessment system that has development pursuant to European Union Directives and caselaw of the European Court of Justice is ripe for review now that we are no longer in the EU. It is complicated, uncertain and its tests can lead to wide repercussions, as we have seen with the “neutralities” issues the subject of Natural England’s advice.

It was no surprise that the Government has been trumpeting for years (literally years) the opportunity to review the system post Brexit.

This was Environment minister George Eustice in his 20 July 2020 speech on environmental recovery: “Later this autumn we will be launching a new consultation on changing our approach to environmental assessment and mitigation in the planning system. If we can front-load ecological considerations in the planning development process, we can

www.planninginlondon.com

protect more of what is precious.

We can set out which habitats and species will always be off-limit, so everyone knows where they stand. And we can add to that list where we want better protection for species that are characteristic of our country and critical to our ecosystems that the EU has sometimes overlooked– things like water voles, red squirrels, adders and pine martens.

We want everyone to be able to access an accurate, centralised body of data on species populations so that taking nature into account is the first, speedy step to an application.”

“Later this Autumn”, my foot!! Only last month was the Nature Recovery Green Paper finally published, for consultation from 16 March to 11 May 2022. This was finally the opportunity to grasp the nettle.

I have read the paper several times now, together with the summary of findings of the HRA review working group comprising DEFRA ministers Lord Benyon and Rebecca Pow, Tony Juniper (Natural England chair) that was published alongside the green paper. I’m afraid I do not see any nettles grasped but rather far too much about how to assimilate the nomenclature and classification of EU designations (special areas of conservation and special protection areas) into our domestic regime and general aspirations for a system that is simpler and clearer without any ideas as to how to make it, in practice, simpler or more clear. How do we actually address these nutrient neutrality issues for

Simon Ricketts is a partner with Town Legal LLP From Simon’s blog at simonicity.com/author/simonicity/ Personal views, et cetera

instance and avoid any more applications via Natural England advice of an emergency handbrake on the operation of the planning system?

I make the point forcefully because there is a risk that we all see this complicated, long-term, expert-driven and ultimately one for the academics and planoraks, whereas it is vital stuff if we are to achieve a functioning planning system alomgside a system of environmental protection and recovery that is fit for purpose (or at least as good as the EU system of which we are no longer part).

My Town Legal colleague Stephanie BruceSmith has summarised chapter 3 of the green paper in a piece which you can find here: https://tinyurl.com/4k3c26tt without amendment - and for which I take the responsibility (but not the credit).

Chapter 3 is the meat of the proposals and Stephanie’s piece, which I think is great and I hope you do too, will give you a good sense of the Government’s thinking. n

Issue 121 April-June 2022

17

OPINION: RECOVERING FROM LOCKDOWNS | VALENTINE QUINIO

The road to recovery The reason why Covid had a devastating impact in the capital is because overnight, London’s strengths turned into weaknesses says Valentine Quinio High street businesses in the hospitality and retail sector have been frontline casualties of the Covid19 crisis. No parts of the country were spared; but London was disproportionately hit badly.

Centre for Cities’ recent Cities Outlook publication has shown that businesses in central London lost nearly a year’s worth of sales between the start of the pandemic and the eve of Omicron - making it the hardest hit of all 63 cities covered in the analysis.

This resulted in a wave of closures: of all 2,426 extra vacant units in UK city centres between 2020 and 2021, a third were in central London.

The reason why Covid had a devastating impact in the capital is because overnight, London’s strengths turned into weaknesses. Office workers, which central London had more of, were advised to work from home; weekend shoppers and tourists coming from the city’s wide catchment area were discouraged by travel restrictions; and non-essential businesses, of which central London had diversified into to a greater extent, were forced to close.

Government support may have sheltered some businesses from the worst, but the way it was set out actually disfavoured those in London. They perhaps benefited more in monetary terms from business rates holidays than those in areas such as Blackpool or Barnsley, but given the latter had higher exemption rates pre-Covid already, the measure only brought parity between different cities. And businesses in central London received the same or less in government grants than those elsewhere, despite having a larger income shortfall and higher running costs (like rent). Putting it simply, the grants didn’t stretch far enough.

Lockdowns may feel like a bygone era, but London has far from recovered from them. The city still suffers from its Achille’s heel, and reduced commuting to offices is still a bottleneck on the capital’s recovery. While weekend activity is nearly back to pre-pandemic levels (a positive sign that the city centre still is a prime destination for shopping and leisure), weekday footfall still hasn’t recovered. After the government lifted homeworking guidance in January, it went up from 44 to 57 per cent of pre-

18

Planning in London

pandemic levels. It’s now the busiest it’s been in the past two years, but still nowhere near its early 2020 levels. As a consequence, retail and hospitality businesses are still missing a key segment of their customer base.

The result is that, by the end of February, overall footfall in London was still 40 per cent down on its early 2020 levels, by far the slowest recovery of all cities. Even other big cities like Manchester, Birmingham or Liverpool are further on the track to full recovery, indicating that the work-from-home ‘issue’ is soon to be a London-only problem.

The concern is that recovery might stall if those most reluctant to return (particularly those who live the furthest away from the centre) stay away from the office. Of course this change in behaviour is not a problem per se but, in the short-term at least, it puts jobs at risk and means the nature of commercial property may have to change to adapt.

Policymakers have a few more levers to pull. On the transport front for instance, they could incentivise more people to return to the city centre by introducing a part-time season ticket, in order to attract those put off by the high costs of commuting.

However, if it increasingly looks like not everyone will return, then more will need to be done to adjust to the ‘new normal’. TfL’s precarious financial situation, laid bare by the pandemic, may become critical, especially if rising fares feed the vicious circle by deterring more people from travelling. Moving away from relying on fares could be a solution to bolster TfL’s long-term income stream – it could develop the land it owns around tube, rail and tram stops, for instance. High street businesses might also need to adapt, both to a permanently reduced number of

Valentine Quinio is an analyst with Centre for Cities

customers and to changes in the nature of demand for different types of commercial space. Greater flexibility over how space is used will be essential.

Developers will be able to use the newly introduced ‘E class’ to change between different types of commercial uses, including retail, offices, restaurants and others without the need for a planning permission.

This will be key in efforts to fill empty units and ease the shift away from over-reliance on retail towards higher demand uses, such as gyms or hospitality.

Some advocate for conversions towards residential space to bring demand closer to businesses. A case-by-case approach is defensible, but this would need to be carefully monitored, as it risks jeopardising the city centre’s primary role as a place of production and consumption. That said, outside of central London, planners should not call for Article 4 exemptions. Increasing density will be fundamental to attract new office workers and bring more customers to TFL and shops.

The challenge for central London does not lie in its long-term future. The fundamentals of its success – a wide and affluent catchment area and a highlyskilled workforce – remain and will enable its economy to adapt and grow. But the road to recovery may well be bumpy. n

PiL READER OFFER:

get a FREE digital edition when you pre-order

The Environment Act 2021 one of the first books to provide a comprehensive overview of the Act specifically for the planning sector

COMING SOON SPRING 2022

£40 + p&p SCAN TO SHOP

Pre-order from bathpublishing.com

CLIPBOARD

CLIPBOARD

Energy supply strategy On 7th April the government published its energy supply strategy: • Wind - The government aims to reform planning laws to speed up approvals for new offshore wind farms. For onshore wind farms it wants to develop partnerships with "supportive communities" who want to host turbines in exchange for guaranteed cheaper energy bills.

• Solar - The government will consider reforming rules for installing solar panels on homes and commercial buildings to help increase the current solar capacity by up to five times by 2035.

Permission finally granted for Bishopsgate Goodsyard In December 2020, the London mayor Sadiq Khan approved plans for the long-awaited mixed-use scheme on a 4.4 hectare derelict site in the east of the capital, after finding that its provision of office space and affordable housing would be "significant benefits”.

Late last month, developers Ballymore and Hammerson completed the section 106 agreement, allowing Khan to grant final planning permission and listed building consent for the scheme.

The development provides up to 130,940 square metres of new employment floorspace, hotel, retail and community uses, 2.58 hectares of new public realm and landscaping.

It requires the provision of at least 50 per cent affordable housing with a “target tenure split” requiring a minimum 45.5 per cent (by habitable room) London Affordable Rent and a minimum of 24.5 per cent Tower Hamlets Living Rent Housing.

The remaining affordable housing units must be at London Living Rent.

In addition, the agreement secures an affordable workspace strategy offering work and retail space in Hackney at a 60 per cent discount.

A £500,000 “local enterprise business support and inclusive workspace contribution” will be provided to Hackney Council to fund measures aimed at encouraging local businesses to occupy and provide services to the development.

20

Planning in London

A visualisation of the finished Bishopsgate Goodsyard scheme (Credit: Hammerson and Ballymore joint venture)

According to a statement from planning lawyers Ashurst, which advised the Greater London Authority and TfL on the project and led the negotiations over the agreement, the planning obligations have secured £5.5 million for strategic road improvements, local road improvements “safeguarding for future improvements to Shoreditch High Street station”, plus “major public realm works, significant employment contributions, affordable workspace and retail units”.

According to a GLA report on the project published last month, the developers have agreed to provide a mayoral CIL payment to the GLA of £33.0 million, a CIL payment to Hackney Council of £8.3 million and £17.9 million for Tower Hamlets. – Planning

Crossrail Officially opens to the public this June. It has been a very long time coming. The project has had a lot of setbacks; it is billions of pounds over budget and was originally due to open in 2018.

These plans were abandoned after stations were found to be incomplete and the software needed to connect the trains and signalling system was round to be full of glitches.

So, as the capital finally gears up for the opening, what impact has the Elizabeth line had to date and what impact will it have when it opens?

Jace Tyrrell, chief executive of the New West End Company, a business partnership stretching across 80 streets in the West End, says the development of the Elizabeth line has brought with it billions of pounds in regeneration over the past 10 years. "If you look at the east end of Oxford Street, and in particular Tottenham Court Road, it has been a major catalyst for all the new development. In some ways, it has come up to the rest of Oxford Street in terms of value and demand," he says.

"The complete transformation of Bond Street, the restoration of Hanover Square, even the £150m Westminster Council is spending on Oxford Street: none of it would have happened without the Elizabeth line.' n

BRIEFING

BRIEFING

Limits to Class E Pemitted Development rights blocked Seven London councils applied for Article 4 Directions (A4Ds) to limit permitted development rights that allow use class E business and commercial premises to be converted into housing.

Minister for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Stuart Andrew responded to seven councils - the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea, Camden, Lambeth, Southwark, Tower Hamlets, Wandsworth and Westminster - saying that the proposed directions “failed to take a sufficiently targeted approach”.

Andrew said the proposed Article 4 Directions “cumulatively would disapply the permitted development right from most of the Central Activities Zone (CAZ)”. The CAZ is an area set out in the London Plan, described by the mayor as "London’s vibrant centre and one of the world’s most attractive and competitive business locations".

Andrew said A4Ds should “apply to the smallest geographic area possible” and having reviewed the evidence was “not persuaded that a case has been made for a blanket coverage”.

He said councils should only propose A4Ds “where there is clear evidence that the permitted development would have wholly unacceptable adverse impacts”. He suggested councils “reconsider” their proposed A4Ds, demonstrating that they had been considered for “individual streets or smaller areas”.

Councillor Elizabeth Campbell, leader of RBKC and chair of Central London Forward, a partnership of the 12 central London local authorities, said it was “very disappointing” that the A4D proposals had not been accepted.

She added that the new permitted development right “risks leading to the widespread loss of vital commercial space” and the “creation of sub-standard housing which doesn’t meet the community’s needs”.

A spokesperson for Westminster City Council added that the A4D is a “valuable tool”

www.planninginlondon.com

in its efforts to maintain commercial and retail space, saying that the response is a “setback” but “by no means the end of the road” and the council “will continue to work with government to ensure we have the powers we need to protect and enhance commercial space in our city.

McCafferty, a partner at architects Grimshaw.

“The 300-metre long station hall sits at the heart of this approach, creating a space that is permeable, accessible and open and connects to the local streets and neighbourhoods through green, pedestrian-oriented spaces.”

New Euston

76 years and £50bn to fix the Palace of Westminster

“The scale of the new HS2 London Euston station means we have the opportunity to create a new truly public civic space for London, a place that responds to transport and passenger needs and becomes part of the existing urban fabric and community, says Declan

Restoring the Palace of Westminster could take up to 76 years and cost nearly £50bn if MPs do not move out during the works, according to a new report.

The most detailed study yet found that >>>

BELOW: A CGI of HS2 Euston Station, designed by Grimshaw Architects: Grimshaw \ HS2 Ltd

Issue 121 April-June 2022

21

BRIEFING

BRIEFING

>>> keeping the Commons and the Lords in the building could increase costs by as much as 60 per cent and dramatically increase the length of time it takes to get the job finished.

The cheapest option would require the building to be fully vacated for up to two decades and would cost £7bn to £13bn, according to the body set up to oversee the project.

Both the Lords and the Commons agreed to the works in principle in 2018 on the basis that they would cost around £4bn and see occupants ‘decant’ to temporary facilities for six years.

But the rising costs of the project have triggered a heated debate in parliament over the best approach, with several MPs including Commons leader Mark Spencer arguing that MPs, Lords and staff should stay in the building while the works are carried out.

The long-delayed review, by the Restoration and Renewal Sponsor Body, set out three options, all of which cost significantly more and would take much longer than original estimates.

A budget ‘essential scheme’ would take between 19 and 28 years for all the works to be completed, with an 80 per cent chance that the final cost would hit £13bn. Palace occupants would need to vacate to external premises for between 12 and 20 years.

Keeping the House of Commons running for as long as possible until all operations need to be transferred to another space within the building would increase costs by 40 per cent, to between £9.5bn and £18.5bn, and add between seven and 15 years to the delivery time.

The most expensive scenario, in which the House of Commons remains operating throughout, would be 60% more expensive with the works taking between 27 and 48 years longer.

A century of England from the air Historic England has launched its online Aerial Photograph Explorer tool, making over 400,000 aerial photographs available to view online for the first time.

Photographs show thousands of historic sites -

22

Planning in London

from Second World War defences and nuclear power stations to the remains of Neolithic monuments, Roman farmsteads and medieval villages.

The tool’s search function allows the public to explore using a map and discover the changing face of England’s urban and rural landscapes over the last 100 years.

Our picture is of Hampton Court Palace in 1941 with anti-aircraft obstructions made up of short sections of ditches and mounds of earth, designed to damage enemy aircraft if they tried to land in large open areas. Also look for a couple of Second World War bomb craters near the 17th century canal called The Long Water and a strip of allotment gardens. Also note the traces of a roadblock (guard posts and pale lines across the road) at either end of Hampton Court Bridge and pill boxes within the traffic islands to the south (top left).

RAF_241_AC10_V_0050 Source Historic England Archive (RAF photography) 26/06/1941

Speeding appeals Housing minister Christopher Pincher has written to the Planning Inspectorate’s (PINS) chief executive Sarah Richards outlining new measures for appeals, including an expectation to reduce average times for decisions.

He sets forth that the government will work on what is necessary to achieve “a further significant improvement in appeal decision timeliness beyond the new measures”.

The new measures for appeals are:

• An expectation that measures are put in place through the new digital services to prevent invalid appeals being made and that appeals are increasingly submitted “right first time”.

• Measuring decision timeliness from valid receipt of an appeal through to decision to reflect the whole customer experience.

• An expectation that average times for decisions will be reduced, as well as reducing the range of time within which decisions are made. The average time to decide written representations cases currently varies between 20 and 30 weeks, with some determined as quickly as eight weeks but some taking more than a year. This range provides insufficient customer certainty.

• Moving progressively towards all cases across all appeal types being decided within these ranges: – wholly written representations: 16-20 weeks.

– partly or wholly by hearing: 24-26 weeks.

– partly or wholly by inquiry: 24-26 weeks (reflecting the previous Rosewell target).

– publishing the number of cases we have quality assured.

The measures that won’t be used include targets based on the ‘start’ date (which is not at the ‘start’ of the customer experience of PINS services).

The statutory time frames for national infrastructure applications (NSIPs) and the target for local plans remain the same. However, they may change when current proposals for wider reforms are finalised.

Pincher writes: “As you know, the government is also committed to improving and modernising the planning system. The work you are undertaking to

BRIEFING

develop 21st-century digital public services is an important part of this. I would welcome you complementing that by identifying what steps might be necessary to achieve a further significant consistent improvement in appeal timescales beyond those above so that most appeals could be consistently decided in four – eight weeks, or faster, whilst maintaining good standards of decision.

Consideration can then be given to whether these steps might be appropriate.”

Richards commented: “The measures by which ministers assess the Planning Inspectorate’s performance have needed updating for a considerable time to better reflect what our customers want.

The replacement measures are good news for us and our customers and will support us implementing ongoing improvements.

“We know our decisions are currently taking too long and customers tell us their experience of our services is too inconsistent. We are working hard to improve this in the short term and continue to invest in recruiting and training more inspectors. Achieving the ambition of these new measures will not be quick, or without dissatisfaction from some, but everyone at the Planning Inspectorate will work together to achieve them.

“We are also investing in the long term, building digital public services which will be at the forefront of a digital planning system and piloting innovative new approaches which have the potential to support both our work and the wider planning system.

“I welcome the minister’s request to report to him on what would be necessary to support a further significant improvement in appeals. This recognises the importance of a fair appeal system to the nation’s economy and is an important opportunity to reflect on how the appeal system can be reframed to operate sustainably for the future. We will engage with key stakeholders on this in due course before we report to the minister.” – The Planner

London growing again London’s population has started growing again after dropping for the first time in more than 30 years early in the pandemic, say analysts at City Hall. Their report confirms that a “boomerang effect” in well underway as thousands of people

www.planninginlondon.com

who left London for the suburbs and the shires began heading to the metropolis.

In particular the ‘many young adults’ who quit the capital during the first lockdown in 2020 as they lost their jobs or went on furlough started flooding back from last spring and summer, the report found after its authors analysed data from GP registers and the rental sector.

This was probably largely due to the reopening of the hospitality and leisure sectors from last April onwards, The report, from the GLA’s City Intelligence Unit concludes: “Following an initial fall over the first year of the pandemic London’s population has likely resumed growing, albeit at a slower rate than it had been prior to the pandemic.”

Some early estimates suggested that the combined effects of Brexit and the pandemic could permanently reduce London’s population by hundreds of thousands in a “race for space” flight from the capital - but these fears appear to be unfounded.

The report found that deaths spiked during the first two waves of the pandemic, when almost 22,000 mainly elderly people died from Covid, and the birth rate has continued its long term downward trend, scotching predictions of a “lockdown baby boom.” The long term trend of older age groups moving away from London has also continued. However, this has been offset by the return of younger Londoners.

International migration to London fell in 2020 due to the combined effects of the pandemic and Brexit but more recent visa data point to at least a partially recovery in the months to September

2021.

The report’s findings are in line with evidence from the property market that strong demand for accommodation is sending rents and prices soaring. The London property market was the weakest in the UK through much of the pandemic but prices have started to accelerate since the start of the year and estate and letting agents report a huge surge in the number of buyers and renters.

London’s population is estimated to have peaked in 2019 at just under nine million – the highest it has ever been in its history. It overtook the previous high of 8.6 million in 1939 just before the Second World War. It fell sharply in the 70s and 80s to a low of 6.8 million in 1991 before starting to rise again as the City boomed following the Big Bang deregulation of financial services. – Evening Standard

House of Illustration ... has secured a resolution to grant planning permission from Islington Council for a £12m project to redevelop New River Head into the UK’s only public arts space dedicated to illustration.

Issue 121 April-June 2022

23

¡PILLO!

¡PILLO!

Updates are lovely …the Chief Planner promises a “further update on our approach to changes in the planning system in the Spring”. Well here’s hoping!

Updates are lovely, of course. Who wouldn’t want an update? I’ll be front of the queue for a nice new update. But you know what would be even better?

A proper response to the 2020 White Paper consultation with a programme for reform.

Because this chronic uncertainty over what - if any - reforms are actually coming forward is now a big part of the reason our system is in such paralysis…

– Zack Simons, Landmark Chambers #planoraks

Wheel failure I think it would help if we went back to evidencebased regulation rather than the Precautionary Principle (under which the invention of the wheel would likely have failed a safety analysis). – Oliver Harwood, Chairman of CULS Rural Forum

Noah’s Arc would never have been built The Government’s white paper ‘Review of Policy for Development in Areas at Flood Risk’ July 2021, does little to provide any confidence that the key policy makers have any understanding of the issues involved, nor an understanding that their policy actively prevents adaptation and innovation.

The solution is simple: The Policy needs to recognise design and the adaptability of that

London-by-Sea

www.planninginlondon.com

design to account for climate change from the outset of the plann making process. Clear guidance on how to apply an inclusive Sequential Test is required. It is a simple solution to a difficult problem that can be so easily fixed. There is an opportunity for the new housing minister, Stuart Andrew, to demonstrate a clear understanding of the issues and look for solutions which to date the Government have failed to do. At the moment, for Noah to build his Arc, he had better look to foreign shores. – Justin Meredith, MD of Floodline Consulting

Planners for Putin Last month I received a leaflet from my local council encouraging me to club together with neighbours to install solar panels. I signed up.

Several bewildering phone calls later, it seems there have been no changes to planning rules in the decade since we moved in. If you live in a conservation area or listed building, and if the sunny part of your roof faces the street, as ours does, the planners are still siding with Putin.

– Camilla Cavendish in the FT

Future reforms It is quite depressing to see the enthusiasm and resolve that inspired the - admittedly controversial - Planning for the Future reforms apparently being sacrificed for political expediency.

If an 80-seat majority cannot deliver meaningful reform, then I suspect it will be a very long time

coming. What a difference 18 months, and a lost by-election, makes. – Nicola Gooch, a planning partner at Irwin Mitchell

Brilliant being old Being old I get free bus and Tube fares. People immediately stand up and give me their seat.

Sometimes they call me ‘Sir’, Listen to all my stories without interrupting. Oh, it's brilliant being old. And even better being carless.

– Hunter Davies in the Sunday Times

Arc failure symptomatic The Arc is a core expression of strategic planning in England and a huge test case for the planning system as a whole. At the moment we don't appear to have the apparatus to make it work.

– David Valler, professor of planning at Oxford Brookes University who is publishing a forthcoming paper examining the failure of politicians to sell the Arc to the public, said the project was emblematic of the wider constraints on planning in England.

The meaning of lifestyle When we refer to lifestyle this includes education, the proximity to accessible primary airports and the number of luxury establishments like five-star hotels, Michelin-starred restaurants and high-end shopping.

– Flora Harley, deputy editor of the Knight Frank Wealth Report n as seen in Poperty Week

Issue 121 April-June 2022

25

BRIEFING | PLANNING PERFORMANCE

Applications fall, decisions up but fewer residential permissions granted Latest planning performance by English districts and London boroughs: planning applications in England between October-December 2021 OVERVIEW

Between October to December 2021, district level planning authorities in England: • received 106,600 applications for planning permission, down five per cent from the correspond- ing quarter of 2020; • granted 90,700 decisions, up five per cent from the same quarter in 2020; this is equivalent to 87 per cent of decisions, unchanged from the same quarter of 2020; • decided 86 per cent of major applications within 13 weeks or the agreed time, down two per- centage points from the same quarter in 2020; • granted 9,500 residential applications, down seven per cent on a year earlier: 1,200 for major developments and 8,300 for minor developments; • granted 2,000 applications for commercial developments, up six per cent on a year earlier.

• decided 60,200 householder development applications, up eight per cent on a year earlier.

This accounted for 58 per cent of all decisions, up from 57 per cent a year earlier. In the year ending December 2021, district level planning authorities: • granted 376,700 decisions, up 20 per cent on the year ending December 2020; and • granted 38,500 decisions on residential developments, of which 4,800 were for major devel- opments and 33,700 were for minor developments, down by three and two per cent respective- ly on the year ending December 2020. This is equivalent to a decrease of two per cent in the overall number of residential decisions granted.

26

Planning in London

Planning applications During October to December 2021, authorities undertaking district level planning in England received 106,600 applications for planning permission, down five per cent from the corresponding quarter in 2020. In the year ending December 2021, authorities received 474,100 planning applications, up 15 per cent on the year ending December 2020 Planning decisions Authorities reported 103,800 decisions on planning applications in October to December 2021, an increase of five per cent on the 98,600 decisions in the same quarter of the previous year. In the year ending December 2021, authorities decided 426,900 planning applications, up 19 per cent on the number in the year ending December 2020 Applications granted During October to December 2021, authorities granted 90,700 decisions, up five per cent on the same quarter in 2020. Authorities granted 87 per cent of all decisions, unchanged from the December quarter of 2020 (Live Tables P120/P133). Overall, 82 per cent of major and minor decisions were granted, up one percentage point from the quarter ending December 2020 (PS2 development types dashboard). Over the 12 months to December 2021, 376,700 decisions were granted, up 20 per cent on the figure for the year to December 2020.

Historical context Figure 1 shows that, since about 2009-10, the numbers of applications received, decisions made and applications granted have each followed a similar pattern. As well as the usual within-year pattern of peaks in the Summer (July to September quarter 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, followed by a period of stability leading to a large dip in 2020 following the start of the pandemic and a subsequent recovery in early 2021.

Regional breakdowns Table 2 shows how numbers of applications received, decisions made and decisions granted varied by region. It also shows how the percentage of decisions granted varies widely by region, from 80 per cent in London to 93 per cent in the N.E. Speed of decisions • In October to December 2021, 86 per cent of major applications were decided within 13 weeks or within the agreed time5, down two percentage points from the same quarter a year earlier.

• In the same quarter, 80 per cent of minor applications were decided within eight weeks or the agreed time, down four percentage points from a year earlier.

• Also in the same quarter, 84 per cent of other applications were decided within eight weeks or the agreed time, down six percentage points from a year earlier.

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 (0 to 100 per cent), followed by minor developments (0 to 100 per cent) and other developments (7 to 100 per cent).

Planning decisions by development type, speed of decision and local planning authority. All tables and figures can be found here: https://tinyurl.com/2p8x39w2 Source: DLUHC/ONS Use of performance agreements Table 4 summarises the recent use of performance agreements6. It shows that they are more commonly used for major developments than minor or other developments, with 72 per cent of major decisions made during October to December 2021 involving a planning agreement, compared with 50 per cent of minor decisions and 37 per cent of other decisions. Figure 4 shows, from 2010, numbers of decisions on major developments made involving a performance agreement, compared with numbers of major developments without a

performance agreement. The underlying historical figures are available in the PS2 development type dashboard. Notwithstanding definitional changes, there has been a marked increase in the use of agreements since early 2013. 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 time series for corresponding totals for planning applications involving a planning agreement for all types of development (major, minor and ‘other’ combined), showing the numbers of decisions and percentages decided within time. >>>

Figure 7: Number of planning applications decided by district authorities, by type of development England, quarter ending June 2011 to quarter ending December 2021

www.planninginlondon.com

Issue 121 April-June 2022

27

BRIEFING | PLANNING PERFORMANCE

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

In October to December 2021, 12,900 decisions were made on applications for residential 7 developments, of which 9,500 (73 per cent) were granted. The number of residential decisions made decreased by seven per cent from the December quarter of 2020, with the number granted also decreasing by seven per cent. The number of major residential decisions granted decreased by nine per cent to 1,200, and the number of minor residential decisions granted decreased by seven per cent, to 8,300 (Live Table P120A, and the PS2 development type dashboard). In the year ending December 2021, authorities granted 4,800 major and 33,700 minor residential applications, down three and two

28

Planning in London

per cent respectively on the year ending December 2020 (Live Table P120A and the PS2 local planning authorities dashboard). This is equivalent to a decrease of two per cent in the overall number of residential decisions granted.

Residential units The figures collected by the department are the numbers of decisions on planning applications submitted to local planning authorities, rather than the number of units included in each application, such as the number of homes in the case of housing developments. The department supplements this information by obtaining statistics on housing permissions from a contractor, Glenigan.8 The latest provisional figures show that permission for 317,000 homes was given in the year to 31 December 2021, up 10 per cent from the 288,000 homes granted permission in the year to 31 December 2020.

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.

Commercial decisions In October to December 2021, 2,200 decisions were made on applications for commercial developments, of which 2,000 (89 per cent) were granted. The total number of commercial decisions granted increased by six per cent on the same quarter of 2020. In the year ending December 2021, 7,800 applications for commercial developments were granted, up nine per cent on the year ending December 2020

FIG 9: Applications for prior approvals for permitted development rights reported by district planning authorities.

England, thirty-one quarters from April 2014 to December 2021

Trends in numbers of residential and commercial decisions Historically, numbers of residential decisions dropped sharply during 2008 (particularly for minor decisions) then increased from 2012, before decreasing since about 2018 (major decisions) and 2019 (minor decisions).

Numbers of commercial decisions also decreased sharply during 2008 and then stabilised at around 2,100 per year for major and 10,000 per year for minor commercial decisions, but have undergone some further decreases recently, particularly for minor decisions. In 2020/21, numbers of major commercial decisions were at about 47 per cent of the pre-recession peak, with the numbers of minor commercial decisions being at about 27 per cent.

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 major developments and about 75 per cent for minor developments) and have stabilised since then, at just over 80 per cent for major developments and just under 75 per cent for minor developments. The percentages of major and minor commercial decisions granted increased steadily, from 89 and 85 per cent respectively in 2007/08, to 94 and 91 per cent respectively in 2014/15, and have both been largely stable since then.

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 of the Technical Notes). The number of decisions made

on householder developments was 60,200 in the quarter ending December 2021, accounting for 58 per cent of all decisions, up from 57 per cent of all decisions made in the quarter ending December 2020. Authorities granted 90 per cent of these applications and decided 85 per cent within eight weeks or the agreed time.

Permission in Principle/Technical Details consent decisions Since 16 April 2017, local planning authorities have had the ability to grant permission in principle (PiP) to sites which have been entered on their brownfield land registers. Where sites have a grant of permission in principle, applicants have been able to submit an application for Technical Details Consent (TDC) for development on these sites. In addition, since 1 June 2018, it has also been possible to make an application for PiP for minor housing-led development as a separate application, independently of the brownfield register. Where a site has been granted PiP following an application, it is possible to apply for a TDC and a determination period of five weeks applies as it is minor development. Extensions of time may be agreed.

TDC applications have a 10-week determination period for major development and a fiveweek determination period for minor development. Extensions of time may be agreed and where it is an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) development, the 16-week determination period applies.

Figures on PiP/TDC decisions have been collected on the quarterly PS2 return with effect from 1 January 2020. They are provided at local planning authority level in Live Table PiP/TDC1. In summary, during January to March 2020, local planning authorities reported 64 PiP decisions (minor housing-led developments), five TDC (minor housingled developments) and no TDC (major developments).

The totals for the next few quarters have been similar, with 60, four and no decisions respectively in April to June 2020; 52, eight and no decisions respectively during July to September 2020; 77, five and no decisions respectively during October to December 2020; 79, four and no decisions respectively during January to March 2021; 86, five and no decisions respectively during April to June 2021; 84, six and no decisions respectively during July to September 2021, and, 73, eight and two decisions respectively during October to December 2021.

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 legis-

www.planninginlondon.com

Figure 10: Applications for determination and prior approvals for permitted development rights decided by district planning authorities England, quarter ending June 2014 to quarter ending December 2021

lation 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 of the Technical Notes). A local planning authority can withdraw specific permitted development rights across a defined geographical area, bringing these types of development within the control of the main planning process.

The results for the latest quarter for which they have been collected (October to December 2021) are included in Live Tables PDR1 (local authority level figures) and PDR2 (England totals). Of the 7,300 applications reported in the October to December quarter of 2021, prior approval was not required for 3,900 and permission was granted for 1,700 and refused for 1,700. This resulted in an overall acceptance rate13 of 77 per cent.

Larger householder extensions accounted for 65 per cent of applications (4,700), with seven per cent relating to change of use from agricultural to residential and four per cent to change of use from office to residential. ‘All other’ permitted development rights, accounted for 18 per cent of applications, up from 16 per cent a year earlier. Taking i) granted applications and ii) those for which prior approval was not required together, 5,600 applications were approved without having to go through the full planning process, down 12 per cent from a year earlier. Within the 12 per cent decrease in the reported total number of PDR applications between October to December 2020 and October to December 2021: • larger householder extensions decreased by 16 per cent; • change of use from office to residential

decreased by 34 per cent; • change of use from agricultural to residential decreased by two per cent; and • ‘all other’ permitted development rights was unchanged.

A new PDR for Commercial, business and service to residential use was created with effect from 1 August 2021. Figures for this were collected for the first time for October to December 2021, when about 140 applications were recorded. Of these, prior approval was not required for about 20, about 60 were granted and about 60 refused.

Because this new PDR includes some of the uses that were previously included within the PDR for ‘Retail and sui generis uses to residential’, this latter PDR has been redefined and renamed ‘Launderette, betting office, pay day loan shop, hot food takeaway, amusement arcade or centre or casino to residential’. Figures collected on this new basis are therefore not directly comparable with figures for the ‘Retail and sui generis uses to residential’ PDR for previous quarters.

Figures for the total number of permitted development right applications made for changes to residential use for quarters from July to September 2014 are given in the quarterly worksheets in Live Table PDR1. These show that a total of 1,200 applications for changes to residential use were reported in October to December 2021, of which 700 (62 per cent) were given the go-ahead without having to go through the full planning process.

Overall during the thirty-one quarters14 ending December 2021, district planning authorities reported 275,900 applications for prior approvals for permitted developments. For 155,600 (56 per cent) of them prior approval was not required, 64,400 (23 per cent) were granted and 55,900 (20 per cent) were refused (Figure 9). n

Issue 121 April-June 2022

29

BRIEFING | LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM

The levelling up white paper & planning + implementing the London Plan Account of Forum meeting on 8th March jointly with Cambridge University Land Society and the ACA. Full minute by James Mitchell also at planninginlondon.com > LP&DF Moderators Brian Waters (BW) Paul Finch (PF) Speakers Joanna Averley (JA) Professor Robert Adam (RA) Roy Pinnock (RP) Janice Morphet (JM) Dr. Nicholas Falk (NF) Dr Steven Norris (SN) Max Tolley (MT) David Bainbridge (DB) Rob McNicol (RM) Paul Finch (PF)

Joanna Averley (Department of Levelling Up Chief Planning Officer) • JA is privileged to be chief planning within government and be able to bring outside practice into government • JA started by reflecting back on the year and the mobilisation of the planning system to address current challenges of the world. in summer ,July, an updated policy within the national planning policy

framework has been lunched reflecting on the role of design and place making and strengthen the NPPF in terms of addressing some of the issues regarding the protection and enhancement of the environment, journey to net 0 and the how to address climate adaptation.

• National Model Design Code has been launched.

It encapsulates and advocates how the process of design and spatial planning delivers good outcomes on the environment, quality of places, buildings, and spaces, and on the delivery of all type of infrastructure.

• National Model Design Code - sets the menu of issues and opportunities (page 7, part 2). It clearly describes the issues that we consistently should consider when designing and planning at different scales.It is about the importance and value of context as starting position of any design and planning; movement promoting active travel; nature - how to protect it and enhance it; build form, identity ; public space; homes and buildings space standards, uses, resources energy heat, and lifespan management.

Many people use page 7 as a checklist and to start conversations with communities and local authorities about what is important to them and adapt the

Meeting held on Tuesday 8th March hosted by Dentons Chairman Brian Waters Speakers Speakers: Joanna Averley, The Government Chief Planning Office: Keynote Roy Pinnock, Partner, Dentons UK & Middle East LLP Professor Robert Adam Professor Janice Morphet, UCL Dr Nicholas Faulk, Executive Director, URBED Trust Steve Norris, Lambert Smith Hampton Max Tolley, England Policy Officer, RTPI

30

Planning in London

Nicholas Bosetti, Centre for London David Bainbridge, Partner, Savills Sanmi Adegoke, Rehoboth Property International Dr Riette Oosthuizen, Head of Planning, HTA Design Moderator, White Paper Discussion & Q&A: Paul Finch, Thomasin Renshaw, Development Director, Pocket Living Rob McNicol, Acting London Plan Team Manager GLA Paul Finch OBE, Director World Festival of Architecture, & Co-Editor PiL

Joanna Averley local policies.

JA talked about digital transformation and the potential of big data and how it has huge capabilities to help cut short the planning process by mobilising the data to help decision making.

There is a huge investing to mobilise the data capability and bringing digital to make things easier,

Participants: Mike Adams Adams Infrastructure Planning Ltd Arthur Bessis Student, University of Cambridge Ian Blacker Planning Director, Tetra Tech Planning Andrew Catto President - ACA, Andrew Catto Architects Sue Chadwick Strategic Planning Advisor, Pinsent Masons LLP Winnie Che MPhil student | MRICS, University of Cambridge Benjamin Choo Student, University of Cambridge Victoria Collett Senior Development Manager, Legal & General Suburban BTR Jan Derlatka Student, University of Cambridge Kassie Foot Rolfe Judd Ltd Melanie Hern, COO ACA Daniel Formston Residential Research Analyst, Savills

clearer, faster with less prone to errors causing delays.

People are anticipating change in terms of adaptation and improvements of the planning system.

Reflecting on the Levelling Up White Paper - it is a new department for levelling up housing and communities, having a set of consideration - health disparities, the quality of houses, economic outcomes, delivery of environment and access public spaces.

The process of change in the planning system has to include all the parties form private and public sector and be more clear collectively of the role planning system.

Questions: Victoria (Legal General Suburban Build To Rent): We have a big scheme in West Sussex that has been held up because of water neutrality issue.

We are not the only one having this issue and it seems to come up a lot lately. I was wandering how are you going to balance the delivery of new homes with the strategic level environmental issues?

JA: We have close working relationship with DEFRA and Environmental Agency and Natural England and it is a pressing and important issue for all us and it is an active policy area that we are looking at the moment. Not being able to disclose more at the moment.

Trebicon (Associate Director Cities) dealing with master planning for over 20 years I found myself increasingly disenchanted by the process of master planning - it is too linear, takes too long especially now when the context is quickly changing and so much disruption happening. Do you think that the master planning is still fit for purpose?

JA: Take same principle as design - it is a process.

It should deal with uncertainty. A masterplan should be adaptable to change. A good example is fixed bits

Annual Planning and Levelling Up-Date 2pm Tuesday 8th March 2022 At Dentons, One Fleet Place EC4M 7WS The levelling up white paper & planning + implementing the London Plan KEYNOTE The government chief planning officer Joanna Averley Roy Pinnock, Dentons Professor Robert Adam The role of the Office for Place WHITE PAPER & PLANNING Housing - a growing role for councils Professor Janice Morphet UCL What to do with the High Street?

Dr Nicholas Falk URBED Delivering the renaissance of our towns and shopping centres Steve Norris Lambert Smith Hampton RTPI Proposals for Planning Reform Max Tolley England Policy Officer RTPI

New focus on employment land Nicolas Bosetti Centre for London Green Belt release – only by appeal?

David Bainbridge Savills White Paper panel discussion with Q&A Sanmi Adegoke, Rehoboth Property International, Dr Riette Oosthuizen, head of planning at HTA Design, Thomasin Renshaw, development director at Pocket Living and speakers –Moderator: Lee Mallett IMPLEMENTING THE LONDON PLAN Rob McNicol Acting London Plan Team Manager, GLA THE WIND-UP Paul Finch NETWORKING AND DRINKS

PLEASE BOOK HERE: https://www.culandsoc.com/events/annual-planning-and-levelling-up-date/

>>> Christopher Francis Director, West & Partners Vendela Gambill Student, University of Cambridge Beth Gascoyne Partner, Cripps Pemberton Greenish LLP Thomas Gibson Account Executive, Redwood Consulting Tom Haworth Design Manager, Tide Construction Ltd Abigail Heraty Planning Manager, Amro Real Estate Partners Daniel Hill Student, University of Cambridge Garth Holden Analyst, Brydell Partners Roddy Houston Chairman, CULS Commercial Property Agency Government Property Agency, Cabinet Office Bairun Huang Student, University of Cambridge Patrick Inglis Architect, IBLA Shayan Keyhan-rad MD, Investre Limited Avanes Khachaturov Student, University of Cambridge Oliver Lazarus Architect, Urban Mesh Nicholas Lindsey Student, University of Cambridge

www.planninginlondon.com

Jacobus Lombard Principal, Deon Lombard Architects Maber-Jones Student, University of Cambridge Ian Marcus OBE Senior Advisor, Eastdil Secured President, Cambridge University Land Society Gregory Markes Senior Planner, Quod Julie Mc Laughlin Associate Director, Tetra Tech Planning Lucy Minyo Richard Morton Director, Richard Morton Architects Ltd Peter Murray Curator-in-Chief, New London Architecture Louisa Nie Grosvenor Alice Perkins Student, University of Cambridge Richard Pia Account Director, Camargue David Primost Managing Director West Heath Properties GmbH & Co KG Jane Qin Student, University of Cambridge Yao Qu

Student, University of Cambridge Zaid Randeree Student, University of Cambridge Quinten Richardson Judith Ryser Director, CityScope Europe Judy Slater Consultant Martin Stepanek Student, University of Cambridge Emilios Tsavelles Senior Planning Manager, SAV Group Jerry Unsworth Independent Planning Consultant, Unsworth Planning George Vasdekys Partner, Salisbury Jones Planning Brian Waters Principal, The Boisot Waters Cohen Partnership Myriam Waters Robert Waugh Associate Director - Asset Management LocatED Property Ltd Salvador Widdicombe Student, Cambridge University Mark Willingale Architect, Willingale Associates Shuqi Zhang Head of Business Development, Country Garden Holdings Company Ltd Yangfan Zheng Student, University of Cambridge

Issue 121 April-June 2022

31

BRIEFING | LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM

>>> of infrastructure that enables things to happen in and around them. You will never embark in a project without having a plan and the masterplan is a three dimensional of a plan and it should look a bit into the future and allow for changes.

A question about spatial planning. The process of planning for future and future generation is lost in planning. Is it enough to plan at district planning - or should it be a higher tier of plan making than district planning?

JA: To recognise the ability and flexibility of the local authority to do joint planning and do not stop at boundaries.

Indicating the balance has shifted that regulatory is the predominantly but it is important. It is enable by a strong plan to protect and enhance what is important now. We have a strong agenda on beauty, environment, quality, place making, housing, infrastructure etc.

Professor Robert Adam (Robert Adam Architectural Consultancy Ltd) Office for Place The presentation is a series of joint up parts that the Office of Place is part of. It began with building beautiful commission /living with beauty policy proposition.

-Series of policy preposition made up a matrix for how things proceed.

-National design guide. Running in parallel.

-June 2021, National Model Design Code RA showed a page from the National Model Design Code showing a cascade level of codes covering different scales and having different roles in different places.

On the right it is an extract showing the Design Code Process and the key part of this process is consultation.

-National Planning Policy Framework - 128 is referring to the design guides that provide a local framework for creating beautiful and distinctive places with consistent and high quality standard of design at different scales.

The Office for Place has been lunched in July, 2021. Visions: • Catalysing fundamental change within and across all levels of government to support the creation and stewardship of popular, healthy, beautiful and sustainable places.

• Help neighbourhoods, communities and public servants on their behalf routinely to ask for and to deliver both new places and manage existing places to be beautiful, popular and sustainable • Support with pragmatic expertise public sector planners and the British design & development industries to the best ‘place-makers’ in the world aided by improving UK and international data on happiness, health, popularity and sustainability.

The Transition Board- has politicians, developers,

32

Planning in London

planners, highway engineers, architects, and so on, to provide a reasonable cross section to help the guide.

Piece of research - showed that the lost trust in the system. (2% trust developers to act honestly on large developments; 7% trust councils to make the right decision on large developments.)

Parasitic development and vicious circle - it is a negative view of how the planning system works.

Houses not places (Unclear quality asks from the planning system) - Opposition to new homesConstrained allocation of new homes - High land cost and pressure on build costs.

A virtuous circle of regenerative developmentPlaces not houses is the key issue - Less opposition to new homes- Democracy brought forward to plan making - Simple and predictable regulations. A degree of speculations is removed from land prices.

Office for Place: five principles • Empirical • Empowering communities • Flexible • Networked • Digital Office for Place: five activities • Researching; • Supporting and accrediting • Training • Celebrating • Advising Office for Place: Researching and Supporting Centred around the issues of code.

RA highlighted that there is a confusion between what a code is and what a guidance is. A code is a binary choice - yes or no. A guidance is an advice to follow but you don’t have to.

Universally we have the issue of lack of resources and skill and the hopes are by advancing a coding process before you get to land sale and start designing there will be more clarity.

One key issues if you codify in advance it should reflect on land value.

The more clarity one has the more accurate land value will be.

Pathfinding - the institutional structure of the Office for Place still have to be structured.

Creating a link between what a community would like to see within policy and how can be built into the coding system.

Labour intensive and difficult thing to achieve these links are the utmost importance. Production of codes and the final product has to be transparent.

Questions: Paul Finch: One of the most difficult things about this exercise is to define what ‘beautiful’ means and I wonder if it is a smart idea to inject the word into policy?

!"#$%&&#"'(#)%"*'+,-.'!/0 (#)%"*'+,-.'+"1/2*%1*3"-4' 5#6&34*-617'8*,

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

!"#$%&$'%(")*+'%(,"("!*-*".! /0123%42456%20%789

:;%%%<=>%021%?@5A4B 7;%%%CD=E2F@1%?@5A4B%62E566B

G;%%%H=@%I12F5?6B%I2IA651%0213J?5=@K%E2K@= L;%%%)2E56D=@%4M@%!"#$%&"'()%*+'(,+-$.&(/%*+ NO%%%(@13D4%5%05=4%415E>%021%?@5A4B :P;%$Q=A1@%@Q021E@3@Q4 ::;%$Q=A1@%IA?6DE%@QR5R@3@Q4%D=%SDK@T%K@@I%5QK% @516B :U;%$3I2S@1%E233AQD4D@= U7;%(12324@%I65QQDQR%@VE@66@QE@ U8;%(12324@%5%E2332Q%AQK@1=45QKDQR%20%I65E@ UL;%!41@536DQ@%I65QQDQR%5QK%=MD04%1@=2A1E@=%0123% 77;%,@JKD=E2F@1%EDFDE%I1DK@%DQ%51EMD4@E4A1@

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

&''"()*'$+*,-.()

!""#$%&"'( )*+$%,&-%.%+($/#01&+02&3455'(6#01

!"#"$%

-%.%+($/#01

!"# "$%&'(%) *"#*+,) &, %+ '(-) &% )(,&)# .+# ($$ /)&012+"#1++3 4+''"/&%&),5 61)#)7)# %1)8 '(8 2)5 ,",%(&/(2$8 %+ #)9"&#) 61(% %1)8 .&/3 2)("%&."$ (/3 %+ #).",) 61(% %1)8 .&/3 "0$8: !"# 7&,&+/ &, %+; 4(%($8,) ( ."/3(')/%($ 41(/0) 6&%1&/ (/3 (4#+,, ($$ $)7)$, +. 0+7)#/')/%5 %1) 3)7)$+*')/% &/3",%#85 %1) *$(//&/0 ,8,%)' (/3 ,+4&)%8 %+ ,"**+#% %1) 4#)(%&+/ (/3 ,%)6(#3,1&* +. *+*"$(#5 1)($%185!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2)("%&."$ (/3 ,",%(&/(2$) *$(4),< 1)$* /)&012+"#1++3,5 4+''"/&%&), (/3 *"2$&4 ,)#7(/%, +/ %1)&# 2)1($. #+"%&/)$8 %+ (,.+# (/3 %+ 3)$&7)# 2+%1 /)6 *$(4), (/3 '(/(0) )=&,%&/0 *$(4), %+ 2) 2)("%&."$5 *+*"$(#5 1)($%18 (/3 ,",%(&/(2$)< (/3 ,"**+#% 6&%1 *#(0'(%&4 )=*)#%&,) *"2$&4 ,)4%+# *$(//)#, (/3 %1) >#&%&,1 3),&0/ (/3 3)7)$+*')/% &/3",%#&), %+ 2) %1) 2),% ? &/ %1) 6+#$3 (&3)3 28 &'*#+7&/0 @A (/3 &/%)#/(%&+/($ 3(%( +/ 1(**&/),,5 1)($%15 *+*"$(#&%8 (/3 ,",%(&/(2&$&%8:

.%&/+0%&*'12&2(312&#4&2/%&1512%6

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

34%!"#$!%-*#/-5)$% !*%2,6'%!.'%"51.!% &'-5$5*/%*/%),"1'% &'(')*+2'/!$

!"#

!" #$%5#*'6&,$/+A-%.2,$%.6$()+2-"%

0" #$%7%+.4(% &'()%1$213$%3+4$%5%-$$,%5% &'$6$%)'$7%162/1$6"

0" #$%&+33%$(%+6%&+02&7+0+1%&+&9#6%&:+(;&926% $E.$33$-.$%&+)'%F=G/%926%,$/+A-%.2,$/"%

8" #$%7+5 /4+33/%(-,%.(1(.+)+$/%29%::+;%<=>/%:++;% .2??@-+)7%5%:+++;%,$/+A-%-$)&264%)2%+-926?% 2@6%92.@/"

8" #$% 5%A@+,(-.$"% #$%(,*+/$%2-%'2&%)2%6@-%1@C3+.%C(332)/%(-,% *+/@(3/%16$9$6$-.$%/@6*$7/"

B" #$%#2%06#"8 3$(,%6$/12-/+C+3+)+$/"

B" #$%./+(%&<%.6&5(+$6#$%&&+,$37"

D" #$%2%"#0% C@/+-$//%?2,$3%21)+2-/"

D" #$%=(#6%&>'<&2%.$(#56#'0.&?&9)@.&926%13(.$% ?(4$6/H%/)6()$A+.%13(--$6/H%'+A'&(7/% 299+.+(3/%(-,%2)'$6/"

LEFT and ABOVE: Robert Adam’s slides BELOW: Roy Pinnock’s slides

Local Plan and Policy Resource Reductions in expenditure on planning (2009-10 to 2017-18)

!"#"$%&'"()

Source: RTPI analysis of MHCLG data on Local authority revenue expenditure and financing

Talent

Shift to the private sector (2006 to 2018)

!""#$%&"'(

Source: ONS Annual Population Survey, filtered by SOC10M = 2432 (Planners). Result for each year is based on period ending September that year

'()%*%+,"

'()-.#*%/0

!"#$%&"#

1#2.-*3#4

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

5%0%2,"

!""#$%&"'

9%/%+($:#34 8(+#3#34

67-#/#34

0122'(.#34 5&6$$(%7#.#34 ;%*%<(+.#34

www.planninginlondon.com

3455'(6#01 ?&A$$(%2#6#01

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

$%%&'

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

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

RA: I made exactly the same point - it is the best you can do with a particular community. It is not static. Producing codes does not produce good design but it stops excess of bad design.

Roy Pinnock CULS March 2022 - Planners and Levellers RP started with an overview of topics covered in 2019 about simplifying and speeding up planning, and strategic planning. In 2020, about the white eight but beauty, planning and London plan.

• We are still talking about reform and basic delivery. Working without the adequate resources.

• If we value planning - are we investing in it? It is telling us that we are not. If the system is asked to

be more and more - it is an enabler, it is there to facilitate things to achieve macro political bills of levelling up and achieve positive change rather than simply regulate the spatial distribution of activity.

Resourcing Planning & Development Budgets (London) 2010/2011 to 2017-2018 Data shows that it has been a decline of almost 60%. The decline in funding over period and the actual expenditure just shows how unrealistic the expectation are.

The demand for planning services is outstripping the supply.

Local Plan and Policy Resource- Reductions in expenditure on planning (2009-10 to 2017-18) On the policy side - a reduction in expenditure is not showing the changes in subsidy. Bigger reduction in subsidy it goes into the planning system.

We should not blame the system too much as it is a resourcing issue ultimately.

Talent - Shift to the private sector (2006 to 2018) It shows that the public body do not necessarily have the actual capacity to deal with demands.

Talent - UK Pipeland - DO Minimum The slide shows a series of pie charts from EuroStat European Labour Force Survey showing the different selected build environment occupations in different countries.

Looking at the distribution of planners - in UK there are many surveyors (44%) and not as many planners (16%) in comparison to Netherlands where there are less surveyors (9%) and more planners (45%).

There will be a significant drop off in the availability of planning talent.

The legal system is overload due to chronic repeated performance.If we are resourcing the real issues we can tackle those over the 5-10 years.

Questions: Steve: How do you make planning ‘sexy’ and how would you get schools to persuade students that planning is the right career for them.

Issue 121 April-June 2022

>>>

33

BRIEFING | LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM

>>>

RP: If you have the window open just look at the view - that is about the contested space between planning with the economic need and design .

Planning can be easy to be enticing to people and hugely exciting.

Janice Morphet (Visiting Professor at UCL) who led the research* on the role of the local authorities re-energising their responsibility for the production and delivery of social housing.

What does LUWP (Levelling Up White Paper) say about housing context: It applies to all the UK - it is thin in terms of references as you go to the content.

In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland the local authority would have a budget to deliver social housing and there is no right to buy. Perhaps England should be levelling up with the other three administrations and go back to having no rights to buy and each council having a five year funding.

Research in London boroughs the mayor has the responsibility of housing funding - and he created means by which each borough can bid for a five years program to deliver housing. The boroughs - 32 per cent are building houses considering the land constraint.

If you look outside London, local authorities are ‘stuck’ with Homes England, not having the 5 year programme, no security and ability to establish a delivery team.

Housing Quality is a key focus - the pandemic has shown a light in councils on the quality of the properties that they own and the kinds of properties which they are negotiation through planning consents.

Quality is absolutely key.

• Levelling Up is a tool to reduce housing pressure in the SE - Janice response is ‘good luck’ with that.There is a housing pressure everywhere.

In the NE the councils are actually building executive homes to maintain having a mixed society. In other parts of the country there are building home for rent for young graduates to keep them in the area after graduation.

• Housing is regarded as physical capital and also contributor to social capital It is not invested only in new places. What about the places that are not going to change that much? Should we be retrofitting, as RIBA said, our suburban areas? They need to change as well and planning and housing can make some contribution to that.

• Housing key in Level Up through productivity not only thinking of modern method of construction, it is also about the relationship between home and work, thinking about commuting, distances, costs of housing etc. Our economy is important in our relationship with housing.

More details points of LUWP - most of these we have yet to see any action to how these will be

34

Planning in London

BELOW: Janice Morphet’s slides

What does the LUWP say about housing? context • Applies across the UK • Housing quality key focus particularly in private and social rented homes • LU is a tool to reduce housing pressure in the SE • Housing regarded as physical capital and also a contributor to social capital • Housing key contributor to community pride in place • Housing key in LU through productivity

What does LUWP say about housing? proposals

Giving renters secure path to ownership Combining housing within regeneration Build more affordable social housing Launch drive for housing quality and conditions Greater role for Homes England to support Combined Authority mayors and devolved funding for housing • Unlock pension fund assets for housing • Planning key means of delivering housing agenda

• • • • •

Meeting housing need • ‘The UK Government will also increase the amount of social housing available over time to provide the most affordable housing to those who need it.

This will include reviewing how to support councils to deliver greater numbers of council homes, alongside Housing Associations.’ (p224) • National Landlord Register • Retrofitting for energy needs • Tackle anti-social behaviour

implemented.

• Giving renters secure path to ownership - ambition but we have not seen how this will happen • Combining housing with regeneration As part of our research a 100% survey has been under taken of every council in England https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/planning/sites/bar tlett_planning/files/cl_local_authorities_housing_and _property_companies_desk_survey_202182.pdf The survey looked at what housing they are building, companies, joined venture partners, what are they doing with housing associations.

Last year we found that a high number of councils engage and support housing through regeneration schemes which are undertaken largely by the private sector.

What recognition they are getting for this kind of contribution which is really coming out of a diminishing resource? We need to find more about this but the affordable houses are more secure basis for regeneration than retail or commercial - this is a very significant factor and the way the economy is moving at the moment.

• Build more affordable social housing Interest to see how the budget is going to be changed and how to get the 5 years programme in the rest of England.

• Launch drive for housing quality and conditions We have no information about this.

• Greater role for Homes England to support Combined Authority mayors and devolved funding for housing • Unlock Pension Fund assets for housing. - this is a new idea but if the government were to implement the International Financial Reporting Standards - which is what every other OECD country uses as a basis for capital investment then we would be able to see more asset based investment.

• Planning key means of delivering housing agenda.

If we want developers and those with consensus to build out, you cannot rely on local authority to force this to happen, they just do not have the power.

• Meeting housing needs - the UK Government will also increase the amount of social housing available over over time to provide the most affordable housing for those who need it.

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is doing that because the budgets have just been released and the number is going up, while England does not have the same kind of budget for the local authorities to be able to do that.

• National Landlord Register Scotland - each local authorities would have become a letting agent to take on private sector dwellings in order to tackle homelessness. This is not the case in England.

• Retrofitting for energy needs - same budget as the new build. We cannot do both so how can we manage that.

• Tackle anti- social behaviour - A good example of this is the Exeter City Living - has been building to passive house standards for over 10 years. An independent assessment of how is it going it was found that domestic violence has been reduced and anti social behaviour gone down. There is less financial pressure domestically on bills.

• There are some good points in the Levelling Up White Paper however the proof will be in the delivery and we have not seen this yet. * https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/planning/news/2 021/sep/third-report-local-authority-housebuilding-published Dr. Nicholas Falk (Executive Director, URBED Trust) What to do with the high street? A call for action now • Dr NF wrote a series of reports for town centres including vital and viable town centres.

• He is an economist, urbanist,& strategic planner In the presentation he gives a view of what White Paper should say.

Start on report of Smart Cities Capitalising on the Digital Revolution.

• need action - vacant rates began to rise after the financial crash. The Town centres are different now

ABOVE: Nicholas Falk’s slides

www.planninginlondon.com

>>>

Issue 121 April-June 2022

35

BRIEFING | LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM

>>> and there is a spatial blindness amongst economists, which causes us to generalise when we need to be specific.

• London West End - probably has been transformed more than most by the loss of students, tourists and office workers. We have to change the act in town centres and think about the demographic profile.

• Great contribution - that the White paper makes is that recognises is a vicious circle.

NF wrote a report in 1972 pointing out the same thing. We discovered there are 7 types of capitals that are leading to persistently worst outcomes so productivity, quality of life, place, and leadership all down because of changes in these different types of capital.

In regards of town centre - a simple diagram of 3 or 4 ‘A’ (accessibility, amenity, attractions, action) was used in the Vital and Viable Town Centre Report 1 Action Made the most of GIS to set priorities; look at the catchment area; identify disadvantaged areas and highlight clusters. Use data that already exists.

2. Access To make easier to get into centre by prioritising ‘active travel’. To tame cars - reducing the speed of cars and integrate the public transport. Charge for out of town parking.

3.Attractions Reopen empty shops: -Redevelop peripheral premises as homes -Support workplaces and community hubs -Take over key building. Once a building has been empty for a while , it has to be taken over by another body.

4. Amenity Promote special place That means looking at clusters and waterfronts; festival and campaigns to animate people, environmental upgrades, reignite civic pride cross-woking with local community groups.

5. Agency Re-empower the local authorities. If were to write the White Papers NF would start by recasting parking charges and property taxes- tackling the issues of money; rethink what town centres are for; set up partnerships and pilot projects; share lessons example - joint Academy of Urbanism Dr Steven Norris (National Head of Planning, Development & Regeneration – Lambert Smith Hampton) How can we deliver the renaissance of our towns and shopping centres?

• Steve Norris (SN) has been advising both the public and private sectors on Town Centre Regeneration for 30 years. He is an expert adviser to the High Street Task Force, and an active member of both the ATCM and Revo.

36

Planning in London

• SN gave an overview of Lambert Smith Hampton (LSH): their multi-disciplinary Town Centre and Economic Regeneration team advises on all stages of the regeneration and property lifecycles - from early site and planning appraisals, visioning and masterplanning, to CPO/land assembly, agency, delivery and management.

• LSH also produce insightful research papers and viewpoints, including on the current and likely future impacts of the pandemic on the retail, commercial leisure, workspace and logistic sectors.

• SN showcased some of the headline findings from the recent research carried out jointly by LSH and Revo which is to be published at the end of April entitled: ‘How we can deliver the renaissance of our towns and shopping centres’. The research is also supported by other organisations, including BPF, UK Hospitality and ACES. • The updated research is based on an online survey, and follows on from similar surveys conducted in 2019 and 2020. The survey respondents comprised a good cross-section of stakeholders from across the public and private sectors with a vested role in the planning, management, investment and regeneration of the UK’s towns and high streets.

• In terms of respondents’ profile and roles, the graphs show a higher proportion from the private sector (75%); which is consistent with previous surveys.

• The survey asked what are the Top 5 Key challenges facing the UK’s town centres over the next 5 years? The main responses were: 1 Business rates 2 Growth of online shopping 3 Oversupply of retail floorspace 4 Rise in home working and decline in office employment 5 Lack of up-to-date plans and strategies for town centres • One of the critical impacts of the pandemic has been to accelerate the rise of online shopping. As the figure show, in January 2021 online shopping peaked at nearly 38%. Forecasters predict it could rise to as much as 50% by the end of the decade.

• The growth of online sales is aligned with the increasing costs, debts and closure of physical retailers over the last decade or more (including recent “casualties” such as Debenhams, British Home Stores and the Arcadia Group).

• But the impacts of the pandemic have been more widespread than just on retail. For example, the rise of food delivery (via Uber, Deliveroo, etc.) means that we can eat and drink at home; and the choices on Sky, Netflix etc, mean we can also have the cinema experience in the comforts of our homes without having to go to the cinema.

• The pandemic has also necessarily resulted in more people working from home over the last two years; and we can now easily attend conferences

and meetings from home. This is having a significant impact on how we work, travel patterns, the demand for workspace, and on Town Centre economies generally.

• The critical challenge for our towns, high streets and shopping centres is how to draw people back to our town centres to help support their recovery and future viability.

• The rise of online shopping and increasing retail closures also means that most of our town centres are over-shopped. The survey asked: “What percentage of current town centre retail space will need to be repurposed and/or redeveloped in order to create more viable and sustainable centres?” A significant proportion of respondents identified between 30% and 50% of existing space. This is borne out by current vacancy levels; with a reported national centre average of circa 16% and a higher shopping centre average of 20%.

• There has also been significant debate in the national and property press over the last 2 years about the future of workspace; specifically how will it look and function in the future? Many businesses are reviewing and downsizing their workspace, and adopting more a more flexible and hybrid models.

• A potentially positive impact of the pandemic, and specifically the rise of home working, is that more people are shopping and carrying out other activities close to where they live. This could potentially benefit some of the commuter towns and smaller centres located outside of London and the UK’s larger regional cities. In turn, this will help to reinforce the implementation of the “10-minute walkable neighbourhood” concept; resulting in more sustainable and economically viable places.

• The survey also asked: “What 2 main interventions for towns and shopping centres will most help to address climate change over the next decade?” Most of the respondents identified the need for improvements to public transport networks and the provision of infrastructure for electric and automated vehicles. The responses also reinforced the “walkable neighbourhood concept” • The main responses to the question: “What measures do you think will help to build greater resilience in our town centres over the next 5 years?”, were: 1 Redevelop and repurpose failing shopping centres and or vacant retail space; 2 Develop more homes in town centres; 3 Introduce flexible turnover rents and/or lease structures for occupiers; and 4 Improve town centre environments, public realm and green spaces.

• The survey also identified the optimum mix for towns and high streets over the next 5 years. The responses highlighted the need for greater diversity and flexibility. Although shops cafés and restau-

LEADERSHIP & RESPONSIBILITY

CRITICAL CHALLENGES OVER NEXT 5 YEARS

Top Five Key Challenges

2021

2020

Who do you think should lead the transformation and renaissance of our towns and high streets?

Change in Rank

All parties Local government Property owners/ investors National government Regional government Town Centre Managers/ BIDs Local communities Local Enterprise Partnerships Occupiers Mayors Other

4% 3%

Business rates

53.9%

49.5%

Growth of online shopping

51.5%

69.7%

▼ ◄►

Oversupply of retail floor space

36.1%

43.1%

Rise in home working / decline in office employment

25.7%

27.2%

Lack of up-to-date plans and strategies for town centres

22.0%

15.0%

4% 6% 41% 8%

10%

•

!"#$%&

•!'#(%&

21%

•!"#$%&

RENEWED OPTIMISM FOR THE

BUILDING BACK TOWN CENTRE

RESILIENCE

FUTURE OF OUR TOWNS AND HIGH STREETS

“What measures/initiatives do you think will help to build greater resilience in our town centres over the next five years, helping to ensure their overall vitality and viability?” !"#$%#&'%"()*&+,-./0&1&+"/2$%#&'#0%("&+$"%)#"'3/+'

!(4/''/()&)#5&2/'/()'6&'%"$%#*/#'&$)7&4$'%#"+.$)'&8("&%(5)&0#)%"#'

)*"

A4+"(2#4#)%'&%(&#)2/"()4#)%&1&+,-./0&"#$.4&1&*"##)&'+$0#'

25%

)&"

B.#C/-.#&%,")(2#"&"#)%'&$)71("&.#$'#&'%",0%,"#'&8("&(00,+/#"'

%!"

D#2#.(+&4("#&3(4#'&/)&%(5)&0#)%"#'

13% %'" (#"

!"

#$"

%&"

&%"

'!"

“Over the next five years, what do you think will be the optimum CRITICAL MIX of uses/ services that will best help underpin successful centres/ high streets and viable regeneration/ development initiatives? !2021: TOP MIX OF USES/SERVICES

Food & beverage (e.g. restaurants, cafes, etc.)

2021

Change from last year

70.5%

◄►

2

Non-food retail (e.g. fashion, household goods etc.)

43.6%

3

Food/ grocery stores

34.4%

4

Low cost/ flexible retail space

29.9%

5

Culture & heritage

29.5%

6

Public realm/ open spaces/ parks

29.0%

7

Street markets

29.0%

8

Pop-up shops/ meanwhile uses

20.7%

9

Free town centre car parking

20.3%

10

New Homes - Private Rented Sector/ Build-to-Rent

19.9%

FUNDING &

0%

Very Optimistic

Optimistic

About the same

TOWARDS A ROADMAP

CRITICAL MIX OF USES 1

2020

)%"

<"(2/7#&)#5&,'#'&=#>*>&+"(8#''/()$.&'#"2/0#'6&0$"#6&?%)#''&#%0>@

Rank

2021

38%

))"

9#7,0#7&0$"&+$":/)*&0('%'&$)71("&%3#&/)%"(7,0;()&(8&8"##&+$":/)*

9#7#2#.(+&1&"#+,"+('#&'3(++/)*&0#)%"#'&$)71("&2$0$)%&"#%$/.&'+$0#

50%

#'"

▼

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

REFORM BUSINESS RATES

ONLINE v PHYSICAL

REFORM RENT / LEASE MODELS

SUPPORT INDEPENDENT RETAILERS

REPURPOSE & REPOSITION

▼ ▼ SUSTAINABL E & GREEN

CONVENIENT & ACCESSIBLE

▼

DELIVERY

ABOVE: Dr Steven Norris’s slides

EVENTS &

TO

Very Pessimistic

'$*&%4#&.52,/$%+5,3&.5"&"#!5(#"*

12+'/&"#3+'+#,!#0

DIVERSE & FLEXIBLE

Pessimistic

PLACEMAKING LEADERSHIP & GOVERNANCE

BUILD LOCAL COMMUNITY RESILIENCE

ALIGN WITH PREPARE INVESTMENT PLANS TO SUPPORT NATIONAL / LOCAL STRATEGIES & TOWNS & BUSINESSES FUNDING SOURCES

CONNECT

• !"#"$%&'()*&+#$%%#&!",-&!"#$%&''&()"*$++",(-)./0" • ./0,&1%23&!",-&!"#123"%&''&()"*$+$",(-)./0"!"#$%&'(#!)(#*+*!,&-,./(#(0"-"1&0# %(2(-(%,!&"-#"3#!"4-*#!"#$(/&'(%#/"-2#!(%1#(0"-"1&0#,-$#5%"$+0!&'&!6#2%"4!)2" • 4%5%33(,)&67&!",-&!"#425%)"(678")79,":";7<8.2

rants are still viewed as vitally important to local economies, our centres need to attract a wider range of uses (including healthcare, education, civic, cultural and residential uses) to be more resilient.

• The research considered the options available to fund and deliver town regeneration/development over the next 5-10 years. As for previous surveys, public-private partnerships remained the preferred delivery vehicle. It is apparent that local authorities are more critical than ever in planning, funding and delivering town centre regeneration projects.

• One of the key reasons is because local authorities have increasing access to different funding sources and grants, including the Future High Street, Town Deal Fund and Levelling Up Funds.

But what happens when the Government-backed

www.planninginlondon.com

Capital Funds run dry?

Both the public and private sectors will have to find different, more creative ways of investing in town centres.

• Aligned with this need for more investment and more creative investment models, the survey also confirmed that the successful and sustainable regeneration of town centres require strong leadership and governance.

• In summary, and notwithstanding the impacts of the pandemic, the research points to a renewed optimism for the future of our towns and high streets. Although it is apparent that retail is not an answer to the challenges facing town centres, there is no “one-size-fits-all” approach to regeneration. The research identifies a number of key themes and interventions that will help build back

their recovery and resilience to dynamic future economic, market and consumer trends.

• SN concluded that there is an opportunity now more than ever to rethink and repurpose the role and function of many of the UK’s failing towns, high streets and shopping centres. It is vital that their future planning, development, management and curation be informed by robust evidencebased visions, masterplans and investment strategies that are aimed at restoring civic pride and create attractive, sustainable and walkable places where everyone wants to live, work, shop and be entertained.

Max Tolley (RTPI England Policy Officer) RTPI proposals for Planning Reform Produced a policy paper last year in March ‘Planning for a better future’ and has five proposals for planning reform which is underpin by two core statements: • The planning must respond to new challenges and opportunities supporting the economic recovery while tackling inequalities, accelerating progress towards 0 CO2 and building resilience • Recognise the importance of reinvigorated prop- >>>

Issue 121 April-June 2022

37

BRIEFING | LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM

Planning reform Plan Making

Taking a long-term view and considering all relevant factors, not making piecemeal one-off decisions.

Development Management

Assessing how planning offices improve schemes through negotiation with applicants.

Green Growth Boards

Bringing together local authorities and key stakeholders to tackle the challenges that a region faces.

Planning for Climate Change and Nature Recovery

Transitioning to a zero-carbon society and enabling environmentally friendly choices in everything from energy to transport.

Place-based solutions Tool created by Vectos to helps planners and designers prioritise interventions on transport in the following order: Substitute Trips: Replace the need to travel beyond your community Shift Modes: For longer trips, use active, public and shared forms of transport Switch Fuels: For any trips that must be made by car, ensure the vehicle is zero emission Promotes the concepts of 15-minute neighbourhoods where most people can meet their daily needs by walking and cycling.

Planning With and For People

To thrive it must continue to be based on consent.

Levelling up Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill anticipated in the Speech.

Research found that planning systems underpin economic, social, environmental and health outcomes.

White Paper Proposals included:

Benefits directly provided or supported include:

Reviewing how local authorities can be supported to deliver more council homes Extending the role of the High Streets Task Force Reforming developer contributions Increasing engagement with infrastructure providers in plan making Improving cycling and walking with Active Travel England

Transport Research carried out for the RTPI in 2020.

Transport emits 35.5% of all emissions in an average local authority.

Explored how different places can achieve 80% reductions in surface transport emissions by 2030.

Identified some barriers to delivery and possible solutions: More effective leadership Better integration across public policy Greater support for policy and decision makers at the local level Making active, public and shared mobility more accessible and affordable than private modes Promote behavioural shifts away from car-dependent lifestyles

Living in a well-planned neighbourhood can support up to 59% of NHS-recommended weekly activity Planning policies prevent excess air pollution, which costs the UK £9-19 billion each year Green spaces in Great Britain provide £16.5 billion in environmental, health and amenity value per year. Planning plays a direct role in delivering that value.

Invest, rethink and prosper Recommendations Invest to support shift from a largely reactive, regulatory to proactive and strategic planning system.

Change performance targets to measure quality instead of speed or efficiency.

Covid-19 demonstrating need for planning to support new living, working and travelling patterns.

ABOVE: Max Tolley’s slides

>>> erly resource planning system and be visionary in our response.

Five proposals: • Plan making - taking a long term view and considering all relevant factors, not making piecemeal one off decisions • Development Management - assessing how planning offices improve schemes through negotiation with applicants.

• Green Growth Boards- bringing together local authorities and key stakeholders to tackle the challenges that a region faces • Planning for Climate Change and Nature Recovery - transitions to a 0CO2 society and enabling environmentally friendly choices in everything from energy to transport • Planning With and For People - to thrive it must be driven by consent Levelling up Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill anticipated in the Queen’s speech later this year.

White Paper Proposals included: -Reviewing how local authorities can be supported to deliver more council homes -Extending the role of the High StreetsTask Force

38

Planning in London

-Reforming developer contributions -Increasing engagement with infrastructure providers in plan making -Improving cycling and walking with Active Travel England.

RTPI and Town and Country Planning Association guidance on climate change published in 2021: • Explains the need to design to cut carbon by promoting energy efficiency and sustainable transport • 29 case studies of best practice • Shows how local authorities and communities can help tackle the climate crisis • Highlights the key of the planning system Transport Moving on a research that was produced in 2020 for the RTPI showed that: • Transport emits 35.5% of all emissions in an average local authority.

• Explored how different places can achieve 80% reductions in surface planning emission by 2030.

• Identify some barriers to delivery and possible solutions: • More effective leadership • Better integration across public policy • Greater support for policy and decision makers

at the local level • Making active, public and shared mobility more accessible and affordable than private modes • Promote behavioural shifts away from car-depended lifestyles.

Place based solutions Tool created by Vectors to help planners and designers to prioritise interventions on transport in the following order: • substitute trips: replace the need to travel beyond community • Shift modes: for longer trips, use active, public and shared forms of transport • Switch fuels: for any trips that must be made by car, ensure the vehicle is 0 emission, Promotes the concept of 15 min neighbourhoods where most people can meet their daily needs by walking and cycling.

Design NPPF revised in 2021 to empower Local Planning Authorities to reject poor design and drive up quality.

• National Model Design Code pilots a pragmatic way of identifying problems and hopefully solutions.

• Enhanced support on skills and capacity critical to

delivery.

• Multi-disciplinary approach.

• Design Codes: Upcoming RTPI commissioned research in partnership with the RSPB. Will show how design codes can help tackle the climate and ecological emergencies.

Two illustrative fictional design codes based on real life data to provide a practical guidance for preparing their own codes such as local planning authorities.

Planning’s positive impacts Benefits directly provided and supported include: • Living in a well-planned neighbourhood can support up to 59% of NHS recommended weekly activity.

• Planning policies prevent excess air pollution, which costs the UK £9-£19 billion each year.

• Green spaces in Great Britain provide £16.5 billion in environmental, health and amenity value per year.

Planning plays a direct role in delivering that value.

• Invest, rethink and prosper Recommendations • Invest to support shift from a largely reactive, regulatory to proactive and strategic planning system.

• Change performance targets to measure quality instead of speed or efficiency.

• Covid-19 demonstrating need for planning to support new living, working and travelling patterns.

Nicolas Bossetti (Centre for London) Making Space: Accommodating London’s Industrial Future In the White Paper there is one mention of employment land and none of industrial apart of converting it to housing.

Who We Are • Independent and politically neutral • Funding from companies, trusts, foundations and public sector • Reports, data events and conferences investigating London challenges and trying to find solutions for them.

Last year Centre for London convened an Industrial Commission bringing together public sector like London Government planners, and industry occupiers and real estate market experts to try to discuss what the future of London industry looks like.

Findings of the report: • Industrial land accommodates very different economic activities data centres from theatre prop making to delivery hubs, etc, • We do not have industrial space in London but demand has remained strong and the land values are squeezing out some businesses.

• The city needs industrial land to function and prosper but this relationship is invisible to most.

www.planninginlondon.com

NPPF

Section 13 Protecting Green Belt Land

Green Belt serves five purposes

Exceptional circumstances Very special circumstances The planning balance

Plan Making

Exceptional Circumstances

At least ten local authorities have either withdrawn, paused, or delayed their local development plans over the past six months Uncertainty over planning reforms Politics A dearth of exceptional circumstances?

Appeals - Overview Policy on called-in applications and recovered planning appeals On average c.1,500 appeal decisions per month

Roughly 90-95% written representations About one third of appeals allowed Planning appeal inquiries

Rosewell procedure

Presumption against unless VSC - higher bar than exceptional circumstances

Planning Appeals

Very Special Circumstances

Site already identified by the local planning authority as appropriate for being taken out of the Green Belt Local authority accepts that Green Belt land will be needed for development

Site is at least partly previously developed land Site is visually well contained If local planning policy is out of date If the proposed development is capable of facilitating benefit beyond residential and which goes beyond mitigating impact

The Future Changes to the Planning System Growth Targets Local Elections May 2022

General Election

LEFT: David Bainbridge’s slides

Climate Change Biodiversity Net Gain

• How to ensure London has enough industrial space 1 Give industrial occupiers more influence in policy making and planning influence 2 Improve evidence to inform land use decisions -

using live property market data. One of the recommendations is for real estate companies to make industrial land market data readily available to policy makers.

3 Enhance local planning, protection and flexibility having more tiers of how essential the activity is for >>>

Issue 121 April-June 2022

39

BRIEFING | LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM

>>> the city.

4 Make better use of existing industrial spaces Planning Appeals- Very special Circumstances through intensification. The Mayor of London should • Site already identified by the local planning authoricreate a fund to co-invest in developments that proty as appropriate for being taken out of the Green vide stacked industrial floor space. belt 5 Make colocation work better • Local authorities accepts that Green Belt land will 6 Improve strategic planning be needed for development David Bainbridge • Site is at least partly previously developed land• Green Belt Release - Only by Appeal?

Site is visually well containe DB began with an overview of what he does - act • If local policy is out of date for client who take land and property through the • If the proposed development is capable of facilitatplanning system and engage with various stakeing benefit beyond residential and which goes holders including local government. beyond mitigating impact When it comes to planning appeals in terms of • Meeting housing need is a fundamental requireGreen Belt release is the most challenging aspect you ment but this in itself if held to be insufficient to The London Plan can have in planning for development. clearly outweighs harm to the Green Belt Delivering Good Growth in uncertain times NPPFSection 13Manager Protecting Green Belt Land Rob McNicol, London Plan 8 March 2022 • Green Belt serves 5 purposes - to look to keep The Future the Green Belt open • Changes to the Planning System. DB does not see a There are 2 ways that one an take land through trend in reducing the policy weight which is given to the planning system to address the Green Belt conprotection of the Green Belt and it is not a bad thing. siderations: • Growth Targets when it comes to residential develOn 2 March, the London • Exceptional circumstances opment, in particular, the standard method for calcuPlan 2021 became part of • Very special circumstances lating house requirements will that change and the development plan for • The planning balance- There should be a considerabecome quite toxic.

London tion toGreater who the decision maker is. When it comes to • Local Elections May 2022 deciding which land should come out of the Green • General Election Belt for development and consideration of a planning • Climate Change application or a planning appeal, it is not always the • Biodiversity Net Gain London Plan 2021 in numbers local authority theThe ultimate decision maker.

To sum up when it comes to the prospect for 47 Opportunity 27 for designated NPPF; Green Belt Guidance; Planning applications: appeals the Green Belt land you can almost 102 policies areas strategic views called-in decisions and recovered appeals forget it.

50 per cent of new 10 per cent of new homes 400 metre exclusion zone must meet the highest homes -toExceptional be genuinely Plan Making Circumstances for new hot food standards of accessibility takeaways near schools affordable • New local plans coming through Panel discussions: 52,000 new homes strategic 43of safeguarded • Uncertainty over planning reforms,55 politics Couple thoughts that you might have on the per year industrial locations wharves • Local plans are being delayed. - when it comes to Levelling Up White Paper: 80 per cent of trips to be taken 95 per cent of construction All major developments by walking, and public and demolition waste to in be Green Belt land cycling it is likely there will be a reduction DrtoRiette: meet netRegarding zero carbon housing and design - particutransport by 2041 reused, recycled or recovered the supply of land coming forward for development. larly design codes might stay. Robert Adams had an 300 organisations and 4,000 consultation interesting point that design codes actually deterAppeals - Overview mines values. I actually think it is a much more iteraPolicyStatus on called in applications and recovered plan- tive process and you cannot actually set design codes Timing London Plan Guidance Adopted October 2021 Be seen energy monitoring ning appeals for areas particularly outside London without underPublic London Charter public until Large-scale purpose-built shared living OnLive average c 1500 Running appeals per month, roughly standing viability of the case for development in the engagement 27 March 2022 Running until Characterisation and growth strategies 90-95% are written representations.

About one third first instance. To make design codes to work well we 27 March 2022 Optimising site capacity: a design-led approach Small housing developments and design codes of appeals allowed. need to look at resources. Roy showed us how under Housing design standards Running until safety Planning appeal inquiries - RosewellFireprocedure resource local authorities are.

20 June 2022 Adoption 2022 Circular and economy statements implement apending number ofEarly recommendations look To do a proper design code, you need to be able Whole life carbon Mid 2022 Urban greening factor to be clear in terms of the process for planning to be a good client and to understand the developSustainable transport, walking and cycling quality positive appeals and this is relevant for appealsAirwhere very ment process.

Design and Characterisation LPG special circumstances on Green Belt land are Sanmi: The level of resources is key for a lot of the The four documents work together work together in the following way involved.

They are quicker. delivery.

Presumption against unless VSC - higher bar than Question arising from your presentation and also exceptional circumstances. some of the statics we saw about the cutting of The planning balance is about harm, benefits, funding for planning. In living memory nobody paid weight. The government policy says to decision makplanning fees with applications, now they do. ers when it comes to new development in the Green No one has seen their council tax going down in A characterisation assessment and growth strategy should be inappropriate, used to inform Local Plans.

This feeds in to The Housing the Designlast Standards should be Belt that it is it will be harmful and it 10-15 years.

Why does it seem as though small site design codes (developed by boroughs) and site used to inform the design of residential parameters for larger sites (for site allocations and development. should be refusedplanning unless there are very special cirplanning departments are being picked on but who is applications). cumstance. it that is picking on them? Is the local authorities

London Plan 2021

LPG

40

current programme

Planning in London

making those decisions themselves?

Professor Janice: A: You can look at the National Audit Office study to give some indications of the results- they looked at 2018-2018. It is the effect of residualisation. You cannot cut social care, and you do not want to cut housing, temporary accommodation. Other use services such as libraries, have already gone into an alternative forms of provision so it is really what is left to cut.

We looked at motivation why council is moving into housing delivery - it is to generate income to support other services.

By 2021 that has been replaced by 2 other priorities - the first one to meet housing needs and the second one is that councils are getting involved in delivery because they are completely appalled by the standards of design being offered by the private sector.

Q:Talking about levelling up in housing. How do you view the levelling up agenda and what for of coming down the line in planning terms.

Professor Janice: A : I come form a perspective of being London based and delivering intermediate housing first time buyers and I think that one of the key things is the we need to think about levelling up across the board.

There is a real problem particularly in London about generational-intergenerational levelling up.There are a whole sort of people, generations who are frankly very prevalent in London and engage very much with planning system and generations below who don’t really engage. They are priced out of the housing

The London Plan Delivering Good Growth in uncertain times Rob McNicol, London Plan Manager

8 March 2022

market. The solution put forward is first homes with a 20% discounted home - and we know through experience that it is deliverable.

Q for Sanmi - Developers by definition - everything you do is about the future. The emphasis on consultation and discussion telling you what is the appropriate design - do you think this is a great opportunity or do you think is actually a whole set of new hurdles that you come to negotiate apart of dealing with the local authorities?

Sanmi: A: We do love consultation with the community to see how receptive they are to the design.

Q: Just want to switch now because we have not talked much about the northern power house. Do you see the sort of political and planning debate in

The London Plan 2021 in numbers

47 Opportunity areas

27 designated strategic views

102 policies

50 per cent of new homes to be genuinely affordable

10 per cent of new homes must meet the highest standards of accessibility

400 metre exclusion zone for new hot food takeaways near schools

52,000 new homes per year

55 strategic industrial locations

43 safeguarded wharves

80 per cent of trips to be taken by walking, cycling and public transport by 2041

95 per cent of construction and demolition waste to be reused, recycled or recovered

4,000 consultation responses

All major developments to meet net zero carbon

300 organisations and individuals participated in Examination in Public Rob McNicol’s slides

London Plan 2021

LARGE SCALE PURPOSE BUILT SHARED LIVING LPG

On 2 March, the London Plan 2021 became part of the development plan for Greater London

Requirements for communal facilities (5 sqm, plus 1 sqm external space) Ten per cent of dwellings should be accessible Standard room size range: 18sqm to 27sqm Accessible unit size range: 28sqm to 37sqm Management plans

LPG

current programme

Status

Timing

London Plan Guidance

Adopted

October 2021

Be seen energy monitoring Public London Charter

Live public engagement

Running until 27 March 2022

Large-scale purpose-built shared living

Running until 27 March 2022

Characterisation and growth strategies Optimising site capacity: a design-led approach Small housing developments and design codes Housing design standards

Running until 20 June 2022

Fire safety

Early 2022

Circular economy statements Whole life carbon

Mid 2022

Urban greening factor Sustainable transport, walking and cycling Air quality positive Air quality neutral

Adoption pending

Design and Characterisation LPG The four documents work together work together in the following way

PLANNING FOR LONDON PROGRAMME Gathering evidence Capturing views of stakeholders

Identifying issues and options

www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/planning-london-programme

LPG

find out more

LPG webpage: https://www.london.gov.uk/what-wedo/planning/implementing-london-plan/london-planguidance Register on the engagement platform: https://consult.london.gov.uk/ A characterisation assessment and growth strategy should be used to inform Local Plans. This feeds in to small site design codes (developed by boroughs) and site parameters for larger sites (for site allocations and planning applications).

The Housing Design Standards should be used to inform the design of residential development.

www.planninginlondon.com

Sign up for the GLA Planning newsletter: www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/stay-touch

>>>

Issue 121 April-June 2022

41

BRIEFING | LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM

>>> relation to the north of England as a different debate or is it actually not so different to what is going on in Oxford or Kent.

Professor Janice A: Each local authority has its own legacy and its own issued to face - so I think in north there are issues about private sector not building and people leaving.

If you are reliant on section 106 to produce social housing or affordable housing then the viability is not there in the north. We need to move away from thinking of developers directly funding social affordable housing through section 106 and go back to using traditional taxation and then giving the local authorities the 5 year programme.

Q: Any final thoughts about the apparently increasing complexity and demands being put on planning applicants now?

Professor Janice: A: It is becoming more complicated and it is understandable. The problem is when you are actually putting an application of 35 homes and you have exactly the same hoops as one that is over 400 and I have had that. It does not make sense and it is not proportionate. My ask is to make the system more proportionate. I am not entirely sure how you can do that but if it could be done I think that would be a a bit of a magic wand.

Rob McNicol Rob is the team manager for the London Plan from the GLA and will give us a rundown on the London Plan.

London Plan 2021 - on 2nd of March become part of the development plan fo Greater London.

Background: • 10 months after the first funding package the was agreed between TFL and the government long term funding for the TFL remains unresolved.

• 6 months after the publication of White Paper • 3 years and 9 months after the fire at Grenfell Tower.

• positively, was 14 moths after the moon activity making London net 0 by 2030.

All of these things pose major challenges for the planning system.

How in GLA planning navigated these uncertain waters while trying to secure the mayor’s vision for good growth.

Quick Remainder of key figures from London Plan • to build 52000 new homes every year in London - half to be genuinely affordable • All major developments to be net 0 CO2 • 80% f the trips to be sustainable by 2041.

• Having an adapted London plan with clear targets gives us all a direction of travel in the planning world • Covid 19 - plans to help London recovery • Tackle other major challenges such as housing crisis and climate emergency.

LPG - current programme • Adapted Oct 2021 - be seen energy monitoring Public London Charter • Live public engagement running until 27 March 2022 large scale purpose built share living; characterisation and growth strategies; optimising site capacity; small hosing developments and design codes; housing design standards.

• Live public engagement running until 20 June 2022 Fire Safety • Adoption pending early 2022 - circular economy statements, whole life carbon; mid 2022 - urban greening factor; sustainable transport (walking and cycling), air quality positive, air quality neutral.

Design and characterisation LPG Four pieces of guidance - separate bits of guidance but they inform each other • Characterisation and Growth Strategy LPG • Small Site Design Codes LPG • Optimising Site Capacity LPG

• Housing Design Standards Fire Safety London Plan Guidance • Sets out in more detail the requirements in Policy D12 for Fire Statements and Planning Fire Safety Strategies • Sets out requirements for who needs to write Fire Statements (suitable for qualifications) • Gives information on outline applications and what to submit with which reserved matters • Puts in place requirements for justification of evacuation strategies and rigorous assessment of the number of stair cores • The Fire Statement must include a commitment that the development will not incorporate combustible materials in its external walls.

Large Scale Purpose Built Shared Living LPG • requirements for communal facilities (5 sqm + 1 sqm external space) • 10% of dwellings should be accessible • Standard room size range from 18-27 sqm • Accessible unit size range 28-37sqm • Management plans covering how the development will operate.

Coming soon to the LPG programme • Adoption of Circular Economy Statements LPG and Whole Life Cycle Carbon LPG • Engagement after the local elections on: affordable housing and viability; industry and logistics; social infrastructure; accessibility; equality inclusion and diversity.

• Developing a monitoring platform - London data hub • Launched a brand new pages that monitor delivery in each opportunity area • Opportunity to begin the conversation that will inform the next iteration the London plan - by gathering evidence, capturing people’s views and identifying the issues and options to take forward.

• Current state of this is to get views of London plan through GLA talk London platform which has

The next meeting of the London Planning & Development Forum will be on Monday 6th June 2018 at 2.30pm in person and on Zoom Discussion items likely to include Levelling-up and planning for working from home To attend please email the Hon Secretary at riette.oosthuizen@hta.co.uk 42

Planning in London

60,000 users GLA Demography Research • Expertise at the GLA monitoring and researching London’s population change over the past couple of years - help understanding trajectories and trends.

Affordable Housing On Referable Schemes • Seen a dramatic increase in the average number of affordable homes by scheme on referral applications (39% in 2019).

The London Plan does best setting a clear aspiration backed by political will and implemented through partnership with boroughs, with the development industries and with Londoners.

Questions: Andy Catto : London Plan, like many others, is expanding in areas perhaps should not be planning. Matters the should be in building controls creeps into planning far too much. You mentioned fire safety - this is a technical matter. All buildings should be fire safe.

Why is a planning matter? Every local authority wants a fire statement as a validation requirement on every application. I spent my last half hour before leaving to come here writing one for a single storey house extension. This is nonsense as it is adding workload on under resource planning staff.

RRM: There are few answers to this - it is to be blunt politics. The mayor has made various commitments and his view that the government’s building regulations system is not up to scratch. Therefore, the planning system needs to do something about that.

The London Plan guidance on fire safety makes it clear that there are reasonable exceptions that can be made. We have spelled out the different schemes that can go down a reasonable exceptions route. In regards to environment standards -the coalition government significantly stepped back and reduced the kind of requirements for high performing sustainable buildings.

I think it is right that the planning system should

incorporate high standards of sustainable development without creating unviable schemes. Coming back to the question - I take the point but I do not think it is necessary the case that London Plan has created a whole raft of additional requirements that are unexpected.

Finally, I would say that we made it clear we do expect everyone in the development industry – both public and private sectors – to do more.

Paul Finch The Wind-up BW introduced Paul - most distinguished journalist in architecture industry.

Thoughts about Levelling Up White Papers: -Talking about the North earlier -People used to think that deprivation had something to do with class conditions. Now we substituted with geography. The Bank of England can chug up North on the Stockton and Darlington Line and pretend they are bringing enlightenment to the poor people for whom planning exists. Meanwhile there are parts of the North that are extremely prosperous.

The Bank of England will know that wealth creation, which is what will make the real difference about levelling up, is fractal and chaotic.

-I have to laugh thinking about the London Plan it is a bit like Stalin’s targets for wheat production in the 1930s, the more you miss the delivery the more the targets will increase. All the housing figures are kind of fantasy given three or four decades of non-construction.

How are we going to make up for the fact that London’s population went up 2 million. Where are the houses for them. Absolutely non existent.

Conservatives hated Peter Walker, first Secretary of State for the Environment (now the Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities) who suggested that any council tenant who lived in the home for 40 years should be given it for nothing.

Can you imagine the screams of horror from the Conservative party who viewed all council house

occupants as idle leeches on the state. Even though at that time most of them were in employment and paid their rent – not true today for other reasons.

The question that arises is funding for housing.

Why does it have to come from developers? The level of housing we provide is a joke.

Another point about London plan in relation to Green Belt -- why cannot it be like listed buildings?

Why can you not have Grade I - you cannot touch it, Grade II you might be able to touch it and Grade III - let’s have a discussion.

To end on a positive, I think some of the speakers showed that you do not have to be binary about this. When Robert said that beauty is a really difficult thing, he said it because beauty is philosophical and it is a dangerous territory. Where is the democratic process in all this?

There is a statement about the changes in the NPPF, which says that now local authorities will be able to reject things that are ‘ugly’. In the first NPPF document, it says that planners can reject things that are not of sufficient quality. Why introduce the word ‘ugly’? The next thing you will have commissars telling us we are going to knock down Brutalist buildings.

There is in all this a denial of the optimistic future, where we can only speculate about the way things may emerge in a marvellous but as yet unknown way.

Brian Waters again thanked the speakers and Dentons for their hospitality; a deputy for Ian Marcus, president of CULS, did the same and all adjourned to the bar. n We include only a selection of the slides. SEE all the slides here: https://tinyurl.com/y679eehv You can watch the event on Youtube [in two parts – there was a tea break!]: https://youtu.be/MEfYPr31gLg and https://youtu.be/70EOZW0_nQY

The levelling up white paper & planning

+ implementing the London Plan

www.planninginlondon.com

Issue 121 April-June 2022

43

Get up to speed with the latest permitted changes of use with this new book & seminar A Practi al Guide to Permitted Changes of Use (Fourth Edition) Due for publication April 2022.

Hardback: £75

SEMINAR + FREE BOOK

Permitted Changes of Use Update 2022

£165 + VAT

When?

10am-1pm, Thursday 5 May Where?

In person: The Thomas Telford Theatre, One Great George Street, London, SW1P 3AA Remote: online via Zoom

Price includes free print and digital edition of: A Practical Guide to Permitted Changes of Use (4th ed) due April 2022 (worth £100 when bought together)

READER OFFERS Pre-order the book & get the digital edition FREE! Worth £75

Get the print & digital edition FREE by booking on the seminar now.

Read more at bathpublishing.com/planning

ANDY ROGERS ON THE DYNAMICS OF PLANNING REFORM

ROGERS

A dull grey paper Andy Rogers is a planning consultant and former director in architects The Manser Practice

Latest efforts to modernise the planning system, as usual, have all the elements of the English novel as defined by Philip Larkin: “A beginning, a muddle, and an end”, says Andy Rogers Before I comment on the Levelling-Up White Paper, here are a couple of old Goon Show jokes: “Hi, are you the greengrocer?” “No, mate, more a dirty brown colour.”

“But I was told you went to Eton?” “Yeah, I was delivering their groceries.”

It turns out that the government’s planning white paper, prefaced by a PM who did indeed go to Eton, was not a patchy dull grey colour like its ‘levelling-up’ replacement. Although rather ironically entitled Planning for the Future, it was too white for its own good and has been binned, following last year’s startling by-election result at Cheshire and Amersham and no less than sixteen key recommendations for watering it down that were contained in June’s Housing, Communities and Local Government parliamentary report.

Responses to the planning white paper consultation, originally promised last autumn, have not appeared. This means that instead of a wide-ranging Planning Bill with revisions to the infrastructure levy, housing need calculations, digitisation and various other Planning White Paper proposals, as promised by Boris Johnson in August 2020 (“Radical reform unlike anything we have seen since the Second World War”), we are promised a Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill “which will be set out in the Queen’s Speech in the spring”.

It will also, presumably, be modelled on the Levelling-Up White Paper, which has been shown to be a dull grey colour. Radical reform is now off the agenda (the government is already looking towards the next general election). Criticism of the white paper includes its overall lack of a proper definition of community (Dr Catherine Queen), a failure to note the importance of ecosystems and nature (Timothy Crawshaw), misunderstanding of how devolution will work in practice (Alica Davidson), no consideration of the inter-generational divide (Marc Vlessing), and little about process (Nicholas Falk).

But my own criticism of the paper is more basic - that it’s nowhere near the fundamental

www.planninginlondon.com

change that we were promised and which we need. Where is the excitement, the way to restore our faith in the planning system overall, and suggestions about modernisation (or even digitisation as included in its predecessor)?

Politicians are not planners and tend to deal in concepts - such as Michael Heseltine’s concept of “jobs locked up in filing cabinets”. But now we are apparently going to deliver more homes while giving power back to local communities, presumably to say No, we don’t want them here. Then we’ll extend pd rights even more so that commu-

Although rather ironically entitled Planning for the Future, it was too white for its own good and has been binned nities have no say after all, according to Tim Perkins - a planner who is really looking forward to a straightforward, less bureaucratic planning system that can deliver everything everyone wants in a simple, easy to use digitally friendly way at no greater cost to the taxpayer.

Studies of the bureaucratic hurdles in the planning system have been produced with monotonous regularity since about 1948. What these attempts at ‘fundamental planning reform’ show is that, however keen the desire for a more efficient system, unless there is a real political will and a proper allocation of resources, very little will actually change.

Consider these statements: “The system itself is in need of reform… People feel they are not sufficiently involved in decisions that affect their lives. The planning system needs fundamental change ...” And “At present, the planning system .. is broken… we need a planning system that enables local people to shape their surroundings… ” And “There might be things you would alter in a perfect world, but you’d have to balance that against the aggravation that change causes…

A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation.

– Edmund Burke, 1790 Constant reorganisation can be totally counterproductive.”

A clue about the origin of these statements is in the description of the planning system as being “broken”. In fact the first comes from the introduction to Labour’s 2001 green paper Planning: delivering a fundamental change; the second from the Conservative’s 2010 green paper Open Source Planning; while the third is a line from an old article by Ed Vaisey in Art Quarterly.

Which of the above includes what can be taken as a fair description of the planning system as it exists today: “…we want to create a planning system where there is a basic national framework of planning priorities and policies, within which local people and their accountable local governments can produce their own distinctive local policies to create communities which are sustainable, attractive and good to live in” ? The answer is not that this is an aspiration in 2001 for Labour’s revisions to the system, but the Tory’s own 2010 description of what they called Open Source Planning. And we are still waiting.

As the Red Queen remarked to Alice: “…here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that”. The government is not running nearly fast enough and its latest efforts to modernise the planning system as usual have all the elements of the English novel, as defined by Philip Larkin: “A beginning, a muddle, and an end”. We are currently in the muddle bit, waiting for the end: watch this space. n Our patience will achieve more than our force.

– Edmund Burke, 1790

Issue 121 April-June 2022

45

THE LONDON SOCIETY

The Aim of the Society is to stimulate a wider concern for the beauty of the capital city, for the preservation of its charms and the careful consideration of its developments

WHY DO WE EXIST? We believe that London's future must be shaped by contemporary culture as well as its rich and layered history WHAT WE DO Celebrate and enjoy the capital’s culture and architectural history. Debate how we plan a future that is beautiful, sustainable and fair HOW WE DO IT Engage Londoners with how the capital is designed and planned through tours, walks, talks and debates FIND OUT MORE www.londonsociety.org.uk

47

LEVELLING UP | GUTO DAVIES

Levelling Up: finding what’s unique about place If the Government is truly serious about delivering real change, it needs to ask and answer difficult questions, says Guto Davies

Guto Davies is Head of Policy at the Association for Consultancy and Engineering (ACE)

48

Planning in London

A huge amount has changed since the Association for Consultancy and Engineering (ACE) published its report on Levelling Up ‘Five Principles for Success’ last year. Most recently the cost of living crisis has come to dominate headlines following the conflict in Ukraine.

It was in this environment that the Chancellor delivered his Spring Statement. Rising inflation formed the backdrop to the update with the official forecast from the OBR peaking at around 9% in 2022. The resulting impact – coming after what have been two extremely challenging years – means difficult times ahead for all businesses in all sectors, particularly those that will be supporting the delivery of the Levelling Up agenda. The reality is that levelling up just got a whole lot harder.

In a previous article for Planning in London, I highlighted that the opportunities span further than former industrial communities in the North of England. The agenda is also relevant to many left-behind communities across London and the South East where two neighbouring urban communities can sometimes be at both extremes of opportunity.

As we enter the latest cycle in the election calendar, the Government knows it can’t pause as voters will start to want to see some results. Since the publication of our report, the Government has released its own White Paper which, according to the Prime Minister, was aimed at outlining “the practical steps” to take.

ACE welcomed the new ‘12 national missions’ as a way to drive activity and ensure spending remains both targeted and on track, but they are nothing without properly structured longterm financing for local government to realise these political ambitions. Our concern was, and still is, that the current approach remains too compartmentalised to be truly effective.

As a very busy policy space, with many organisations vying to have their say on the direction of government thinking, making your voice heard can sometimes be challenging. However, given our industry’s role as the delivery partner of choice for government, it was only natural we focused on delivery.

Our analysis demonstrated a disconnect between political ambitions and delivery on the ground, and ACE highlighted the ways in which our industry is ideally placed to be the delivery partners of choice, helping to plug gaps in local authority provision.

Our recommendations targeted the barriers to making progress in the short and medium term. Most importantly, those recommendations were used to judge to what extent the Levelling Up White Paper would be a success.

As one might expect, funding is clearly an important part of the White Paper. After all, what is ambition without resource?

However, as we set out in our report, the Government needs to consolidate funding resources and reduce the use of competition and ringfencing. This is particularly relevant given the Spring

Levelling up: five principles for success November 2021

© Association for Consultancy and Engineering, 2021.

Statement announced the launch of the second iteration of the levelling Up Fund.

The current ambitions around Net Zero and the decarbonisation of our economy provide new opportunities for the Levelling Up agenda. It is vital that government strengthens the link to Net Zero by prioritising the leverage of the existing built environment. To put that into context, 80% or more the buildings and infrastructure of 2050 already exist. Therefore criteria for accessing Levelling Up funding should prioritise the reuse of existing structures over new build. Not only will this make a large contribution to reaching our Net Zero targets, it will also help deliver social outcomes too, breaking the link between a declining built environment, poor mental health, and low productivity.

Our five principles also formed the basis for delivering successful place-based regeneration. Particularly relevant to local authorities bidding for funding, areas need to build a solid evidence base. Levelling Up needs to be based on a robust analysis of local context. This analysis should include an area’s existing buildings and infrastructure, its geography the planned infrastructure investment pipeline for the area, local skill sets, demographic data, and the results of deep engagement with the local community about their needs.

As you will know, London is home to huge amounts of private investment. But there is certainly more to do in many communities. Areas wanting to ‘level up’ need to work out how they will become famous and what their USP is. A place needs a strong

Build a solid evidence base analysis of local context. This should include an area’s existing buildings and infrastructure, its geography the planned infrastructure investment pipeline for the area, local skill sets, demographic data, and the results of deep engagement with stakeholders and the local community about their needs.

1

2

5

A place needs a strong and achievable proposition to put to its residents, commuters, visitors, and investors.

3 4

Assess if local public sector institutions and their private sector partners have the capacity and skills to develop and execute your strategy – you may need to amend plans

Build on what you’ve got A place’s proposition does not need to be completely original and not every place can be world class in everything. What

Organise delivery around

to the area’s particular conditions opportunities and personality. avoid chasing funding pots or trends for their own sake

broad strategic challenges. Public and private sector alike need to organise around people and their needs and not their own technical disciplines or internal structures. Delivery plans should be based on bundles of interventions that join the dots between transport, energy, environment, education, employment, and everything else important to a place.

and achievable proposition to put to residents, commuters, visitors, and investors.

When local authorities are planning bids, they should do so by remembering the importance of building on what they already have. A proposition does not need to be completely original and not every place can be world class in everything. What is important, however, is a proposition’s which enhances the area’s particular conditions for opportunity and personality. Communities should leverage these advantages and avoid the trap of chasing funding pots or broader trends for their own sake. A failure to do so may mean short-erm funding wins, but a loss of medium to longer-term benefits for the community.

Perhaps the biggest challenge, aside from resource, to levelling up is the scale of challenge in many areas. There’s certainly no ‘silver bullet, and as such, we need to ensure joined-up solutions.

That forms an important part of our fourth principle to organise

www.planninginlondon.com

delivery around people’s needs. Delivery plans should be based on bundles of interventions that join the dots between transport, energy, environment, education, employment, and everything else important to a place.

Finally, the principle of Levelling Up isn’t something new. The fact that many areas have faced these challenges over decades speaks volumes about the challenge. But if the Government is truly serious about delivering real change, it needs to ask and answer difficult questions. That is also relevant to local government in left-behind communities. Do those left behind communities have the capacity and capability to drive change? How can we ensure collaboration between the public and private sector to find new sources of support? n Find out more about the Association for Consultancy and Engineering (ACE): www.acenet.co.uk

Issue 121 April-June 2022

49

THE LEVELLING UP WHITE PAPER | NICHOLAS FALK

The Levelling Up White Paper: bridging the gaps

Dr Nicholas Falk is Executive Director of The URBED Trust

50

Planning in London

In a monumental report of over 300 pages in which the summary alone accounts for 27, the current UK Conservative government has set out its big ideas for narrowing regional and other inequalities. Elaborate charts and extensive comparisons show the extent of the gaps that need to be bridged.

A learned 100 page introduction seeks to learn from history and the great waves that shaped the fortunes of cities in the past. But strangely little is said about how the process is to succeed when so many previous attempts in the UK have failed, and when most people’s faith in planning has been eroded. . In this article I want to go beyond the stories of Jericho and other notable collapses to summarise the basic analysis in the White Paper. Also worth considering what the UK could learn from the success of post-industrial cities the Academy of Urbanism has assessed, such as Bilbao, Eindhoven and Leipzig, and most interestingly of all the renaissance of Llublijana, which has triumphed after the collapse of the former nation of Yugoslavia.

Early in the White Paper the point is made that the UK has done worse than many of its competitors: These global economic growth dynamics have been mirrored in the UK over recent decades, with long waves of expansion and contraction. But these dynamics appear to have been both more powerful and persistent in the UK than in some other countries. They also appear to have left deep and long lasting economic and social scars. The result has been larger spatial differences across the UK than elsewhere, which have persisted and widened over time.

Surprising to some, even our Core Cities such as Manchester have done relatively poorly, whereas some of the smaller towns such as Darlington may have done better. Bigger is not always best. But as the UK performance has been weak for decades in spite of a myriad of studies and initiatives, why should this report mark a turning point? Most of the first hundred pages reiterates what most of us have known for years, that the economic, environmental, and social performance of a country, and the areas within it, are inter-linked. The report extends the usual analytic framework by talking of six different kinds of capital, four pillars, and no less than twelve missions and 49 indicators.

But it fails to grasp the underlying dynamics despite comparisons with Florence under the Medicis and the ‘sauce’, which a previous government called ‘urban renaissance’. That may be because it is largely based on what can be quantified, and pays little attention to the stories of places that have undergone fundamental change.

Importantly the report recognises early on that the differences within cities are often as great as those between them.

While the output per head or productivity in London may be high, the incomes differentials are much less as those with most money live outside the city. The wealthiest areas are not

the happiest. This pattern of spatial polarisation should hold the key to bridging the gaps, yet the maps that would bring out the dynamic differences are largely omitted. As the places with the best economic performance can have the worst life satisfaction, the report rightly concludes that there is more to success than economic performance. The happiest people are healthy and older, but housing tenure seems to make little difference. We may not have adopted the priorities that people would set locally.

As ‘geographic differences are long-lived’ and history dependent it is not surprising that most initiatives appear to have failed, at least in giving politicians what they are looking for. Yet having personally played some part in tackling the problems of the ‘inner cities’, which are no longer even mentioned, it is possible to discern real change over the period of a generation or more. The report repeats the common metaphor that ‘cities are engines of growth’, without analysing what causes businesses to grow or fail. Perhaps if the authors had inquired into why, say, BMW expanded in Leipzig while withdrawing from the UK (except for its Mini plant in Oxford) or why Bilbao has done better than Sunderland they might have appreciated the keys to turning modern post-industrial cities around.

An important conclusion is that connectivity matters, which is why peripheral places often perform poorly in economic terms: The UK’s second cities have generally lower population densities and relatively poor local transport infrastructures. Centre for Cities, for example, found that in Europe, on average, 67% of people can get to their local city centre in 30 minutes using public transport, compared with 40% in Britain. This suggests public transport in UK cities may limit productivity by reducing effective density and, as a result, agglomeration.

The report rightly stresses the importance of industrial clusters in explaining economic success (which is why past attempts to transplant businesses generally failed dismally.)

Different forms of capital are recognised, such as social capital, though intriguingly all the economic insights tend to come from US academics. What is called the New Economic Geography no longer expects the market to correct failures, so ‘left behind places’ get locked in a downward vicious circle.

Most of this incidentally was recognised once the post-war boom tailed off in the 1970s, though the idea of ‘social narratives’, or what I would call the ‘culture of a place’ may be new.

By page 73 the report at last recognises the central importance of institutions, and hence the need to join up action to have any impact: In the UK, the depletion of civic institutions, including local government, has gone hand-in hand with deteriorating economic and social performance.103 A key paragraph and fresh insights come in the section on

synthesising different approaches, referred to as ‘the Medici effect’ or a kind of ‘sauce’ that transforms the ingredients: Multiple factors are responsible for driving widening geographic differences in the UK. There are a rich set of capitals – physical, human, intangible, financial, institutional and social – that explain spatial patterns of growth. These capitals combine as part of a complex, often hyper-local, growth ecosystem. In a complex system, it is impossible to identify one (or a sub-set) of the capitals as the dominant driver of spatial success. Rather these factors are deeply interconnected and interdependent, and it is this rich mix that generates success.

When it comes to prescribing solutions, the White Paper generally follows American thinking, which in my view is a limitation.

However it also draws on current work in the University of Cambridge to expand the concept of capital, though in a mechanical rather than an organic way: Following a multi-disciplinary approach, the framework is defined by six capitals: physical, intangible, human, financial, social and institutional. The engine of regional growth is a sixcylinder one. These six capitals cross-cut the public, private and civil society sectors. This underscores the importance of partnerships between sectors when growing local economies.

Interestingly natural capital is added as a kind of after thought. The metaphors are further mixed up when it proposes to ‘develop a map of the key drivers of the UK’s economic geography’. The picture from successive charts is clear enough; the pattern of decline is circular, and finance tends to favour the rich, not the poor. There are surprisingly few surprises, and the diagram showing a vicious cycle is just a more complex version of

www.planninginlondon.com

one I produced at McKinsey nearly fifty years ago for a report on ‘A Total Approach to the Problems of the Cities ‘that kicked off the Inner Area studies under an earlier Tory government. Sadly while Productivity comes up again and again, other concepts such as poverty and polarisation are missed out, and the general approach is to take a wide angle lens rather than the area focus that previously prevailed. The term regions incidentally was outlawed by Eric Pickles when he was a Conservative Minister, but the idea of city regions and county metros are making a come back.

This in turn leads on to the recommendations, which are set out under four admirable headings or themes: a) boost productivity, pay, jobs and living standards by growing the private sector, especially in those places where they are lagging; b) spread opportunities and improve public services, especially in those places where they are weakest; c) restore a sense of community, local pride and belonging, especially in those places where they have been lost; and d) empower local leaders and communities, especially in those places lacking local agency.

As with most of the conclusions it is almost impossible to disagree with them. The question, as always, is how to turn visions into reality, that is how to deliver what is promised.

Spatial strategies to tackle market failure become the new mantra, as they justify government intervention in the marketplace. So the lessons from the international examples should be particularly instructive, especially as some of these have been recognised by the AoU in the past, such as Rotterdam, Malmo

ABOVE: Figure 1.62 Levelling Up Capitals Framework

Issue 121 April-June 2022

>>>

51

THE LEVELLING UP WHITE PAPER | NICHOLAS FALK

Levelling Up the United Kingdom

>>> and Lille, as well as references to East Germany.

One of the common themes from all of the examples considered here is the need for a shift in the policy regime which rejuvenates growth in the six capitals, thereby kickstarting economic dynamism. In most cases, central or subnational government made significant and sustained investments in human, physical and institutional capital, which served as a catalyst for higher growth.

The keys to success are summarised in terms of clarity of vision, consistent policies, coordinated investment, and collaboration between stakeholders. Significantly cross party consensus in Barcelona over 25 years is highlighted. But there is little First published in the AoU to explain the ‘narratives’ of collaboration, and how some city Journal Here and Now. regions managed to switch direction while many others did not. www.theaou.org Because the section on international lessons is so brief, there is

52

Planning in London

little on the process of strategic planning or how the resources were mobilised. It is as though cities and their management are still a black box.

If we really want to reverse the tides, we will need greater inspiration than the White Paper provides with its call for cities to provide a similar transport experience to London or achieve a Kings Cross style transformation. It would be good if the Academy of Urbanism could use its experience and contacts in cities that have won awards for bringing about change in difficult circumstances, such as Leipzig or Llubljana, to offer advice to some of the places that want to introduce spatial strategies.

But this should also require government to commit itself to learning how the process of mobilising land and property can be made more effective, efficient and equitable, to end with another simple framework. n

LEVELLING UP WHITE PAPER | OWEN HAWE AND ATUL JOSHI

Levelling Up White Paper: missions possible or impossible?

Owen Hawe and Atul Joshi outline the key headlines from the LUWP and what the potential implications are for the property and planning industries

The Government’s long-awaited Levelling Up White Paper (LUWP) sets out twelve national levelling up missions. These missions reflect the medium-term ambitions of the Government, underpinning the expectations and plans of both the private sector and civil society. Whilst some missions are more precise than others, the general message is one of spreading opportunity more equally by 2030. The key to delivering this will be through devolution and empowerment of local leaders and communities.

The private sector has not gone unnoticed in this matrix, with a clear message of encouragement to work in partnership with the public sector to deliver these missions.

Atul Joshi is Associate Director Planning, Development and Regeneration and Dr Owen Hawe is a Planning Assistant at Lambert Smith Hampton

Take a deeper dive into the detail Let’s take a closer look at the key topics emerging from the Levelling Up White Paper.

• Devolution Representing the biggest shift of power from Whitehall to local leaders in

54

Planning in London

Positive, loose and open to interpretation The LUWP allows for opportunities to enhance environmental, social and governance (ESG) policies at the local level. The Government will set out an initial framework, which should then provide an opportunity for local authorities, stakeholders and communities to engage and direct positive initiatives at the local level. As the paper concludes, ‘this is a collective endeavour’ – we see the value in the Levelling Up agenda to bring back the old style grass roots, regional policy.

The elephant in the room is that, yes, the rhetoric in the LUWP is fantastic, it would be hard to find someone who doesn’t want a ‘healthier, greener, stronger, and fairer economy’ but we first need to start seeing this policy being applied with on-the-ground actions aiming to unlock investment.

We find ourselves in the epi-centre of the Levelling Up Agenda.

Eight years have passed since the ‘Levelling Up’ phrase came to the fore, when the then Chancellor, George Osborne, announced the Northern Powerhouse Initiative. We now have eight more years to deliver the missions of the Levelling Up agenda, leaving many wondering if these are simply 12 Missions Impossible...

The lack of detail in the LUWP has also left us with a sense of dissatisfaction, as many important details will be delivered ‘in due course’. For the length of the paper, there simply isn’t enough to fully understand how these missions will be achieved at a local level. However, we must also acknowledge that the LUWP is perhaps more strategic – setting out the big picture – rather than the tactics of how success will be achieved.

recent times, the LUWP will set out a complete systematic reform of how the government works, in order to better levelup the United Kingdom.

• Planning Anyone working in planning will be well aware of the slow process of adopting local plans. To address this, the LUWP states that ‘local plans will be made simpler and shorter’, work more efficiently, and give communities a greater voice. Councils and communities will also create new local design codes, helping to shape streets ‘as residents wish’. The LUWP continues with ‘empowering’ terminology throughout as it looks to shift the power to communities.

The housing crisis is still an ongoing issue, the LUWP responds on this front by stating that funding for housing will be focused on brownfield sites and away from London, unlocking £1.8bln investment to deliver up to 160,000 homes across England. New housing on brownfield sites could open further opportunities for regeneration, whilst improving well-being and urban living and positively contributing to “people everywhere living longer and more fulfilling lives, and benefitting from sustained rises in living standards.”

With last year’s Planning White Paper now likely being watered down from the radical reform initially implied, it is safe to say that although there are references in the LUWP to future planning reforms, much of the planning reform dialogue has been largely left open. On the plus side, it is positive that the Government is still indicating that these will happen but whether or not we will see anything before the next elections remains to be seen.

• Town Centres The Government will proactively identify and engage with 20 places in England that demonstrate strong local leadership and ambition and where the impact of existing investment can be maximised to catalyse economic transformation. The first of these will be Sheffield and Wolverhampton. In England, the Government will refocus Homes England so that it uses its extensive statutory powers to partner with local leaders to

unlock barriers and drive forward regeneration.’

A key ‘mission’ is for “Pride in Place” with the aim that by 2030, people’s satisfaction with their town centre and engagement in local culture and community, will have risen in every area of the UK, with the gap between top performing and other areas closing.

To aid with this, 68 local authorities are to receive expert support from the High Street Task Force including Southend-on-Sea, Somerset West and Taunton, Rossendale and Dudley. Delivery to these local authorities will be staggered, starting from summer 2022 until the end of the programme in 2024. Furthermore, the Government will explore further measures to revitalise high streets including “ways to incentivise landlords to fill vacant units.

For instance, powers for local authorities to require landlords to rent out long-term vacant properties to prospective tenants”. We will wait to see how this is put into practice considering landlords will always seek to generate income from their properties.

The Government will also enhance compulsory purchase powers to support town centre regeneration; provide further support for re-using brownfield land for development; set a more positive approach to employment land in national policy to support the provision of jobs; and increase engagement with infrastructure providers in plan making to bolster productivity.

Part of the policy programme relates to high street rejuvenation, the High Street Strategy making it easier for converting empty shops into new uses, such as homes; rights to allow al fresco dining making streets safer and cleaner. In continuation to the loosening of planning restrictions, the LUWP states that “the UK Government will bring forward further measures to make high streets and town centres the thriving hearts of communities again.”

Regeneration and Funding The LUWP recognises that the preparation of bids for government funding can be substantial as they must include complete business cases and require a lot of resourcing which may not even result in any funding, against tight timescales. Hence, the Government intends to streamline the funding landscape and help local stakeholders more on how to navigate funding opportunities. Consequently, the Government intends to streamline the funding landscape and help local stakeholders more on how to navigate funding opportunities. This review is guided by four principles: 1 reducingtheunnecessaryproliferationofindividualfundingpotswith varied delivery approaches; 2 streamliningbidding,andsupportinggreateralignmentbetween revenue and capital sources; 3 ensuringplaceshaverobustongoingmonitoringandevaluationplans for the impact and delivery of investments and spending; and 4 tailoringinvestmentanddeliverytothelocalinstitutionallandscape of each nation of the UK. Having a more streamlined funds in place is beneficial, however local authorities will still need people ‘on the ground’, and there needs to be parity, led from the ground up, which is what we have always advocated for. This has always been a point of contention with devolution, giving powers to those who may not have the competency to carry them out.

The criteria for qualifying for future funds still appears to be unclear. It is our opinion that funding could be more restrictive on

www.planninginlondon.com

back of the economic cost resulting from the Covid-19 crisis amongst other fiscal uncertainties.

Health and Well-Being It is hugely positive that health and well-being span across two Missions, with the aim of narrowing the Health Life Expectancy (HLE) and improving overall well-being by 2030. Having a health outcome as a priority for the UK Government demonstrates just how important having a healthier society is. Health remains a hot topic in the world of planning and development and this is a good reminder that it’s at the forefront of the Levelling Up agenda. Having a health outcome as a priority for the UK Government demonstrates just how important having a healthier society is, in all respects. Furthermore, health has been implied to become more devolved.

The paper acknowledges that a society in good health contributes not only to the economy but also ensuring that everyone, wherever they live, can enjoy fulfilling, happy and productive lives.

The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) are preparing a White Paper designed to tackle health disparities, and it will be interesting to see if the built environment will be included in this.

• Culture Culture has also been included as part of restoring a sense of community, local pride and belonging. There is discourse on culture-led regeneration and transforming the landscape for arts, culture and heritage by “significantly increasing cultural investment outside London”. In fact, 100 per cent of the additional funding for Arts Council England agreed at 2021 Spending Review (SR21) to support culture and creativity will be for outside London, including a £2bn Culture Recovery Fund helping museums, theatres, cinemas and heritage organisations survive the pandemic.

• Employment The LUWP promises to “set a more positive approach to employment land in national policy to support the provision of jobs; and increase engagement with infrastructure providers in plan making to bolster productivity”. This is a welcomed announcement for employment land to be on a more level footing with housing land and one that is urgently needed if the UK is to keep up productively levels in line with other advanced economies.

• Energy Decarbonisation and the ‘transition to net zero’ is also a great soundbite although there’s little detail on a strategic plan for actually implementing this and how this ties in with previous announcements to reduce carbon emissions by 68 per cent by 2030 (compared to 1990) and 78 per cent by 2035. n

If you have any questions on the Levelling Up White Paper (LUWP) and what it may mean for you, please contact AJoshi@lsh.co.uk or OHawe@lsh.co.uk

Issue 121 April-June 2022

55

WORKING FROM HOME | FRANCES HOLLISS

Design for working from home Many of the current obstacles to designing well for home-based work could be removed through change to C3 ‘Dwellinghouse’ of the Use Class Order, says Frances Holliss

© Frances Holliss

Dr Holliss is Emeritus Reader in Architecture at London Met University

56

Planning in London

Covid-19 has transformed the way people live and work, globally - a change that in years to come may be characterised as a paradigm shift. Policies enforcing home-based work, put in place to restrict the spread of the virus, have been unexpectedly popular and most people who worked from home during the pandemic now wish to continue to some extent or other.1 Employers have found that most employees were equally or more productive working from home than in a central office2 a win-win situation that has consequences for overheads and commercial property portfolios across the world: WFH makes good business sense. And as a result, most organisations are planning for a hybrid future.3 This has major implications for the built environment which has for more than a century been conceived and designed around the spatial separation of dwelling and workplace.4 The late C20 ‘live/work’ movement, the bane of the planning world, was an attempt to disrupt this in the face of money to be made from disused warehouses after industry left the city and a steadily growing home-based workforce. It failed spectacularly, however, in part due to problems with governance issues including the UK’s mono-functional planning Use Class Order and binary property taxation system, both of which accommodate dual-use buildings with difficulty. Supportive live/work planning guidance that attempted to address this was introduced in 1996 in the London Borough of Hackney, but rescinded just seven years later.5 The evidence indicates that before Covid most contemporary home-based workers operated covertly - either because they feared they were, or because they actually were, breaking some regulation or other.6 Most homes are designed around the domestic functions of cooking, eating, bathing, sleeping, bringing up children and watching TV. But, as many have found during Covid, small, overcrowded, poorly-designed housing makes home-based work difficult. Forty-three percent of UK homes built since 2002 are purpose-built flats with an average usable floor area of 55m2.7

Often built to standard plans, inflexible in use and lacking potential for adaptability over time, these can create some of the worst conditions for homeworking. A primary finding of twenty years’ research into the architecture of home-based work is that one-size-does-not-fit-all. There are four variables: the nature of the occupation, the nature of the household, the amount of space available and the personality of the homebased worker. While the current focus is on the teleworker, in reality people work from home in a wide variety of occupations, from data analyst to hairdresser, vicar to childminder.•8 Additional space is needed in the home if people are also to work there comfortably and effectively. The middle class achieves this through under-occupation, using a spare room, disused garage or home office or studio built at the bottom of their garden for their work. But, as Covid has highlighted, this option is not available to those, often young or from deprived communities, who inhabit small, overcrowded, poorly-designed homes.

So, housing needs to be bigger, as a matter of course. A recent study, based on a secondary analysis of data from more than 125 case-studies of home-based workers and their premises in the UK, Netherlands, Japan and USA (2005-17) has generated preliminary recommendations concerning space for homebased work. These include the necessity for a separate dedicated space for people to work in, as a normative aspiration, with a minimum floor area of 6m2, which has been found to provide adequate space for a single person carrying out a range of

activities, especially computer-based work, but also as a playroom for a child-minder, for example. The study observes that it used to be common for homes to have a 6m2 ‘box-room’, and recommends that this is reintroduced as home-based workspace.

As this is smaller than the minimum size (7.5m2) for a single bedroom, it would not confuse occupancy calculations or contribute to overcrowding.10 The London Plan, intended to guide the direction of the city for the next 20-25 years, currently ignores this fundamental change in how we live our lives and its far-reaching implications for policy and how we conceive, design and manage the city, its buildings and its transportation. This is despite the fact that the home-based workforce has been growing rapidly for the last 20 years, reaching 13.9 per cent in 2014, the highest rate since comparable records began.11 Other countries accommodate design for home-based work with less difficulty. Japan emerges as the front-runner, possibly because the transition from feudalism, when most worked from home or lived at their workplace, to industrial capitalism in 1868 involved minimal urban disruption. The buke-yashiki (or ‘spreadout-houses’) of the most powerful consisted of sprawling collec-

www.planninginlondon.com

tions of live/work buildings set in acres of landscaped garden enclosed by a tall wall and surrounded by the merchants’ and artisans’ tightly packed workhomes. These huge gardens, inhabited by less than a tenth of the city’s population, occupied 70 per cent of the area of Edo (the original name for Tokyo) and provided pools of underdeveloped land within the city that made ideal sites for the range of urban buildings necessary to Tokyo as the capital of a modern state.12 Buildings designed for home-based work are, maybe as a result, integral to Japan’s governance systems. Planning is organised by impact (1), and in their equivalent Use Class Order, the domestic category ‘houses’ includes ‘houses with other small-scale function (store, office etc)’. These are permitted in twelve out of thirteen land use zones. In even the most tightly regulated residential district of Tokyo, 49 per cent or 50m2 (whichever is the smallest) workplace is permitted in any home. In addition, Japanese property taxation is calculated on proximity to amenities, transport etc, independent of use. Both these governance instruments facilitate the construction of dualuse buildings and friction-less change of use within permitted land use zones.

Many of the current obstacles to designing well for homebased work in the UK could be removed through the insertion of ‘and dwellinghouses with other small-scale function (shop, office etc)’ into C3 ‘Dwellinghouse’ of the Use Class Order, alongside the undertaking that Council Tax alone would apply to such buildings.

In the meantime, lateral thinking is

ABOVE (1): Japanese Control of Building Use by Land Use Zones (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, Japan; available: https://www.mlit.go.jp/commo n/001050453.pdf) FAR LEFT ABOVE (2): Street View House For Artists ©JohanDehlin FAR LEFT BELOW (8): Vast areas of openable glazing House For Artists ©JohanDehlin

LEFT (4): Front access balcony A House for Artists by APPARATA Photo credit: Ståle Eriksen and (5) Rear access Balcony Photo credit David Grandgorge

Issue 121 April-June 2022

>>>

57

WORKING FROM HOME | FRANCES HOLLISS

>>> required to build well for home-based work while avoiding the pitfalls of the live/work movement. A creative collaboration between public, private and third sectors - the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, Apparata Architects and Create London – has achieved this in Barking. A House for Artists (2) provides a dozen one-, two- and three-bedroom apartments for low-income home-working artists, above a fully-glazed collective ground-floor workspace (3). Wholehearted support from the local council was crucial to its realisation - gliding through planning under Sui Generis/C3/D1, the project was funded through budgetary cross-subsidy.

The inhabitants, in effect, barter part of their working week, curating and running Barking and Dagenham’s community arts programme, in exchange for rents at 65 per cent of their chargeable value and free workspace. Generosity, flexibility and adaptability are central design principles. An ingenious fire strat-

egy involving access balconies to the front and rear (the former wide and inhabited (4), the latter narrow and utilitarian (5)), increases the usable floor area of each apartment by 7-8m2 by eliminating the need for internal corridors. An elegant structural design allows any or all internal walls to be removed, maximising the different ways each studio-apartment can be inhabited, from cellular to open plan (6).

Three second-floor apartments have large pairs of soundproofed double doors in the party walls between them, to facilitate co-living and co-working (7). And vast areas of openable glazing provide the high levels of natural light required by working artists (8), while creating ambiguous inside/outside, public/private relationships.

This building provides a model for future social housing: beautiful, comfortable spaces, affordable in perpetuity for lowincome home-based workers to live and work in. n

LAYOUT ADAPTABILITY

RIGHT (6): Adaptability diagrams

3B 5P

2B 4P

2B 4P

UK Space Standards

Add rooms if needed

Remove walls if not needed

Connect a switch room to a neighbour

Reconfigure as through plan

Open plan with curtains

Shared afterschool childcare: doors open 3:30-6pm on weekdays

Live/Work 1-bed apartments with co-working space

4 bedroom flat share

Big shared dinner party: doors open once a year

Elderly parents next door: doors open when needed

Whole floor for an extended family

BELOW (7): Co-housing diagrams

FOOTNOTES: 1 TUC (2021) The Future of Flexible Work 2 Zimmerman, A (2021) Remote work can boost productivity and curb burnout, LSE 3 Alexander, A., et al (2021) What executives are saying about the future of hybrid work, McKinsey and Company 4 Holliss, F. (2015) Beyond Live/Work: The Architecture of Home-based Work, Routledge 5 Ibid pp151-153 6 ibid p108 7 English Housing Survey (2017) Floor Space in English Homes, MHCLG 8 Hakim, C. (1998) Social Change and Innovation in the Labour Market: Evidence from the Census SARS on Occupational Segregation and Labour Mobility, Part-Time Work and Student Jobs, Homework and Self-Employment, Oxford University Press 9 Holliss, F. and Barac, M. (2021) Housing Space Use in the Pandemic and After: The Case for New Design Guidance, London Metropolitan University 10 Holliss and Barac (2021) p21 11 ONS (2014) Characteristics of Home Workers 12 Jinnai, H. (1995) Tokyo: A Spatial Anthropology. P9

58

Planning in London

CO-HOUSING SCENARIOS

THE RESILIENCE PLAN FOR LONDON | NIGEL MOOR

Planning for the apocalypse Nigel Moor examines the Resilience Plan for London

RIGHT: The first-ever London Resilience Strategy published in February 2020.

SEE: discussion in PiL 120

Dr Nigel Moor is a retired chartered town planner and a former town, district and county councillor

Black Swan Events Storm Eunice dominated the headlines for several days in February. Although the storm tore off large sections of the roof of the O2 Arena, and there was loss of life, it fortunately did not have the massive impact originally feared. What it did demonstrate in London, as elsewhere in Britain, is the need to remain resilient, and to reduce the risks associated with severe weather incidents. But these are just one of a series of threats that London needs to face and plan for. It is a worrying long list: drought, terror attack, flooding, extreme weather, infrastructure failure, disease pandemic and cyber attack.This last threat was the subject of a book published by former MP and Minister Oliver Letwin, when he retired from parliament in 2019.Apocalypse How deals with an internet collapse and Britain`s lack of proper preparation for black swan events (unlikely but not impossible events).By only dealing with one potential event, Letwin failed to anticipate the pandemic which struck a year later, but he made some salient points about planning for resilience. To list just two. In order to avoid the collapse of the electricity grid and telecommunications, we need to maintain analogue land – lines Power stations need to have a second alternative grid co-ordination. There needs to be separation from the internet.

Much of the new low-carbon electricity generation is planned for remote or coastal areas, which means new infrastructure will be needed to bring the electricity to homes, businesses and vehicles some distance from the source. In 2011 National Grid announced the winner of its` design competition for a new pylon design. The T -pylon designed by Bystrup, a Danish engineering company, was chosen by the judging panel as the winning design.

Since National Grid has been working to ensure that the design can work in practice – for example, standing up to 80 mph winds, or the additional weight of snow in winter. The first of the pylons have been erected in Somerset to connect Hinckley Point C nuclear power station with the national grid. The new pylon allows the route of the transmission lines to follow the contours of the land rather than the sudden changes in direction that characterised the routes with lattice pylons London City Resilience Strategy 2020 In February 2020 just ahead of the first pandemic lock-down, the Mayor of London launched the first -ever London City Resilience Strategy to address the new and unprecedented challenges facing the capital. In researching the strategy the GLA collaborated with the 100 Resilient Cities Project which helped it gain international perspectives on resilience.

Pioneered by the Rockfeller Foundation and launched in 2013,

www.planninginlondon.com

to help cities around the world become more resilient, it offers technical expertise and access to support from leading companies with the necessary expertise and capability. The strategy initially sets out the features of city resilience and then looks specifically at the long – term shocks and stresses that are likely to affect the city between now and 2050.

Some twenty - one actions are identified and an implementation programme put forward. The urgency for this work is demonstrated by some of the key statistics set out in the report. London is the economic engine of the country accounting for 23 percent of the UK`s economic output. Every month 300 million journeys are made by public transport and just under one million bikes are hired. London is connected to the world as a centre for global trade and services, with nearly 400 international destinations served by direct connections from London airports. London already experiences threats of a disturbing magnitude. In August 2019 a major power outage affecting parts of London resulted in severe disruption to trains, the underground and roads. It caused a brief loss of water supply to 3,000 houses. >>>

Issue 121 April-June 2022

59

THE RESILIENCE PLAN FOR LONDON | NIGEL MOOR

RIGHT: Storm Eunice tore off large sections of the roof of the O2 Arena.

Photo source: PA Media.

BELOW: The T-pylon Photograph source: Bystrup TYPLon_Id1030x687

60

>>> Long- term shocks and stresses The report points out that London has already developed robust emergency plans through the London Resilience Partnership and the London Risk Register. These focus on emergency plans for risks over a 5-year time horizon. This new plan looks specifically at the long – term shocks and stresses.

Extreme heat management is one of the actions identified. By the middle of the century, London`s climate could resemble that of Barcelona, being some 3 degrees centigrade higher than at present. A network of cool spots across London is proposed, accessible to all Londoners. This would complement the Mayors` partnership with Thames Water, which is to install a network of more than 100 drinking fountains across London.

London has already taken big streps to protect its environment. The Thames Barrier was built in 1983 to protect London from tidal surges from the North Sea. The design year was 2030 but the Environment Agency now forecast that this can be extended to 2070. Current projections of sea level rise give a standard of protection much higher than expected. Not originally foreseen, the barrier is increasingly used to prevent fluvial

Planning in London

flooding in West London.

London is prone to drought London is prone to drought after only two dry winters. By 2040 London is forecast to have a water resource gap of over 100 mega- litres per day. All water companies in England and Wales are required by government to produce a drought plan.

Thames Water produced their plan in 2017, which was updated in 2021. Integral to the plan is the Water Resources Plan which seeks to manage supply and demand for water. To make London`s water use more sustainable, different way of reducing potable water consumption and water wastage are being explored. Key are the metering programme aiming at a 73 per cent target for installation of individual household smart meters, reducing leakage and encouraging water efficiency. Over the period from 2025 to 2045, innovative groundwater recycling schemes and a strategic reservoir scheme are proposed. Over this period Thames Water aim to reduce the individual water consumption of London`s population by around 12 per cent.

Increasing Resilience Examples of how City Hall will work to increase London`s resilience include ways to increase food security by increasing food growing in London and providing support to vulnerable Londoners. Members of the public frequently are first on the scene in the event of a terrorist incident or other threat before the arrival of emergency services. Because of this first-aid training for the public on a large scale becomes ever more important so that immediate help can be provided. Making the most of the city`s green-spaces to help deal with heatwaves is highlighted.

Increased collaboration through the Counter Terrorism Preparedness Network (CTPN) becomes another priority, as well as sharing best practice for this preparation with cities across the world.

An important action is to pursue safe, resilient homes and buildings. In 2019 there were more than 5,000 fires in Londoners` homes. On average nearly 1000 people are injured and 50 people die in fires in London very year. This action was signed off before the government response to the Grenfell Tower

>>>

A compelling read!

LEFT: The Thames Barrier has proved its worth countless times since installation in 1983.

Photograph by the author

Inquiry Phase 1 report was published in January 2020.This identified significant changes to be made at the London Fire Brigade (LFB). The Home Office has received an action plan setting out how LFB intends to being about these changes. The action plan needs to accord with the latest advice from government on protecting homes and buildings from fire.

There are many good ideas and initiatives contained in the report but reading through each of the twenty -one actions, there is significant duplication. The list needs a good edit so as to simplify and clarify, for it is crucial that London`s citizens understand what are the threats confronting the city and the agreed actions. Like so much of what now passes for strategy and plan, the authors seem to be writing for each other rather than an inquiring public.

London showing the way Resilience planning offers built environment professionals an opportunity to contribute their expertise and skill to this crucial task. London is showing the way.

Greater Manchester and the West Midlands are similarly developing their resilience strategies. We wait to see whether this holistic approach might be replicated at a national level. n

www.planninginlondon.com

FAR LEFT: Grenfell Tower on fire.

Copyright Nataline Oxford.

The London Resilience Strategy will need to reflect government advice following the recommendations from the public inquiry

Dr Nigel Moor began his career in London with the Covent Garden Planning Team, and since been active in local politics. His new book England`s Future – the impact of politics on shaping the environment - is to be published by The Book Guild this October

Issue 121 April-June 2022

61

DESIGN CODING | RIËTTE OOSTHUIZEN

Design coding: a new culture of plan making?

Planning through design coding has a lot of potential – it is what we trained for as planners and design professionals, says Riëtte Oosthuizen

Dr Riëtte Oosthuizen is Planning Partner, HTA Design LLP

62

Planning in London

In early March 2022, announcing a second round of government funded Design Codes, the new Housing Minister Stuart Andrew, emphasized1: “We want to give local people power over what their neighbourhoods look like and make sure all new developments enhance their surroundings and preserve local character and identity.

Whether that’s choosing red brick for new buildings in our industrial heartland cities or choosing to set sustainability standards for newbuild homes, our Pathfinder Programme will help turn visions of greener, more beautiful homes and places into standards which developers adhere to”.

The above very much presents a view of communities leading the way on a new generation of design codes that will set the tone for places and buildings. Whilst I absolutely support the view that local communities should be fundamental to the process of setting in place the rules for new development in their neighbourhoods, a process of plan making through design coding also requires a well thought through, evidence-based vision of the future, a good brief based on an understanding of the practical implication of challenges such as climate change to lead the process, and, the effective use of the coding in the development management process after the Code is adopted.

Design codes do not necessarily guarantee development quality; they are only as good as the people who shape and implement them. Unfortunately preserving identity is not always what planning for the future is about: sometimes it is necessary to change local character to ensure long term sustainability and well-being for all. That means challenging conceptions about delivering more of the same or hankering back to the past. The introduction of the word beautiful in the same breath complicates matters. A lot of our urban fabric, in particular post war suburban fabric, is not ‘beautiful’ and certainly can do with a radical refresh.

What is a Design Code?

The Government’s National Model Design Code describes a Design Code as: “a set of simple, concise, illustrated design requirements that are visual and numerical wherever possible to provide specific, detailed parameters for the physical development of a site or area”.

When created appropriately, design codes could provide “…a framework for creating healthy, safe, green, environmentally responsive, sustainable and distinctive places, with a consistent and high quality standard of design”. The process of creating a design code can “bring greater certainty for communities about the design of development and bring conversations about design to the start of the planning process, rather than the end”.

The above, as described in the National Model Design Code, places a pretty hefty responsibility on a Design Code as a guarantor for quality development. Design Codes are to encapsulate the

vision for an area and set in place appropriate rules so that development coming forward can easily comply with it. There is a great opportunity here, but the process needs to be adequately resourced and implemented.

Design codes are not new. They are often produced as a supporting document in complex and/or large-scale planning applications delivered over a number of years. They are seen as a method of ensuring the design quality approved at planning application stage gets implemented throughout the construction process.

However, Design Codes have now been moved much more to the forefront as a tool to do proactive planning, shaping places with foresight. Since the government published a National Design Guide in 2019 and thereafter the National Model Design Code, these documents are now being adopted or referenced by local authorities in newly emerging Local Plans or supplementary planning guidance.

In recent weeks, we have learned that many of the original radical changes to the planning system announced in the Planning White Paper ‘Planning for the Future’ were binned, including the purported move to a three-tier zoning system. However, there seems to be widespread understanding within the industry that design coding is here to stay as a much more integral component of the planning process and local plan making. Design coding will become proactive plan making.

Anticipated reforms – now expected through the levelling up bill – are to focus on more streamlined Local Plans and wider use of design coding, in particular at small scale through ‘street votes’ – the principles discussed in the Policy Exchange report ‘Strong Suburbs’ published in February 2021 and discussed within the findings of Living with Beauty, the final report of the Building Beautiful Commission, published in 2020: “Design codes might also serve an important function in citizenled densification. We consider a proposal for the voluntary densification of the suburbs, according to which streets are allowed to give themselves rights to extend or replace existing buildings, within certain limits. This procedure could enhance existing

neighbourhoods by allowing them to evolve from suburban sprawl to traditional European urbanism. Residents would also be required to agree to a design code, so that each of them could have confidence that any changes their neighbours might make would harmonise”2.

Design codes functions at all levels, however, not just street level. Whilst they can be used to re-imagine the future of a street, they also function across new settlements, a whole village/neighbourhood and masterplan/growth areas.

How is the process panning out in practice?

Experience from practice demonstrates that the process of developing Design Code SPD’s is complex. It requires an indepth understanding of long term built quality drivers versus viability sensitivities; how a strategic vision could be affected by the consequential in-depth understanding of environmental constraints and/or landownership boundaries of a site; and, and how strategic objectives such as tackling climate challenge should translate to development management decisions in relation to, for example, minimizing parking provision and targets for carbon reduction.

Lessons are only just emerging from the first tranche of Design Codes funded by Government following the National Model Design Code. Each of these codes had a subsidy of £50,000, woefully inadequate to fund a fully thought through Design Code. A second round of funding of have just been announced, with larger

www.planninginlondon.com

amounts allocated to the respective pilots, varying between £120,000 to £160,000. Four neighbourhood planning groups have also been allocated £30,000 each.

The necessary technical report base for design coding larger sites is extensive and expensive and it is not conceivable that local authorities would be able to fund this on their own for all the sites within their area. Land promotors and developers will have to step in which makes the process of being aspirational in terms of design quality requirements within design codes more difficult as viability of delivery also plays a large part and will be argued for by developers.

To make the implementation of design codes successful, planmaking and development management need to be strongly tied together. Political support is key to that.

For the implementation of street level ‘design codes’ it may be necessary to think about how local community groups could be supported – not only through the design code process – but also the funding, delivery and construction process so that street level planning and uplift in land values are not only for those with equity and a loud voice.

Planning through design coding has a lot of potential – it is what we trained for as planners and design professionals. A visionary approach to our streets and cities is the way to imagine a better future – with residents. There is a fantastic opportunity here to think how we want to live and work in the future and not simply try and copy an idealised version of the past. n

FOOTNOTES 1 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/communitiesempowered-to-shape-designof-neighbourhoods 2 P. 38, Living with Beauty, The report of the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission, January 2020.

Issue 121 April-June 2022

63

URBAN DESIGN | FEDERICA BURICCO

Planning and urban design: with behavioural change comes urban shift Federica Buricco explains what will play out for Planning and Urban Design in 2022

ABOVE: CRTKL street sketch 2 – A streetscape design from CallisonRTKL that adopts shared surfaces, low kerbs and sensors, adopted to optimise the traffic flow and transform the street into a flexible space for multiple activities.

Federica Buricco is an associate at CallisonRTKL

64

Planning in London

While some may have started adjusting to the seismic changes brought on by a health pandemic, the resulting financial strains and an ongoing climate challenge; our cities including London are still playing catch up to the altered lifestyles and expectations a new normal is placing on them.

At a time where industries and assets are being consolidated and repositioned, the versatility and flexibility of building typologies have become a key component. Successful towns and cities will be developed through community dialogue that involves voices from all segments of the population, especially the underrepresented. Engagement is shifting from outreach into a trusted partnership. The community is the expert; the role of the urban planner must involve convening, translating, and learning from all stakeholder groups in a community in order to support and translate those needs for a more flexible and resilient future.

The Government’s Levelling Up White Paper, recently stated that a strong planning system was vital to level up communities and by that planners, developers and architects will need to realise the potential of every place on its own merit. In London, community will be key with each borough having its own measures to create better ‘urbanscapes’ for their people. It will be interesting to see how the new planning reforms for London, due to be announced soon as part of the Planning Bill, will take community into account.

In the meantime, the below remain key drivers of change in London’s planning and urban development:

Climate As recent natural disasters have reminded us, our natural and urban environments are incredibly fragile. To protect communities in harm’s way while fostering economic development, guiding future growth, providing new parks, housing, transit, and recreation, and restoring natural habitats, a comprehensive approach to mitigate these effects is vital. Studies have shown that water levels are expected to continue rising. Planning across London needs to mitigate any future chronic flooding of the River Thames.

Meanwhile, global warming will lead to a rapid rise in temperatures. Beyond outlining expectations of how human life may change should greenhouse gas emissions continue to climb; cities must now plan how they will fight the heatwaves.

London is already ahead of this curve, ensuring its greenhouse gas emissions are reduced with several Ultra Low Emissions Zones (Ulez) with Mayor Sadiq Khan recently announcing he would expand to run the zones across all 33 boroughs. With this in mind, when it comes to planning, developers and city planners will need to consider sustainability measures to further reduce car usage, introducing green infrastructure along multi-modal streets and to construct all new buildings to ‘zero-carbon’ standards as set out in The London Plan 2021, a framework for how the capital will develop over the next 20-25 years. Protecting our cities and our planet will be key to planning goals and design.

The Public Realm Planners need to factor in safer, more flexible, inclusive, and humane spaces that connect natural and urban environments and this is for everyone no matter what economic background people come from. Complemented by landscape and water; public seating, level access, shared surfaces, lowered balustrading, windows for wheelchair users, braille signage and tactile surfaces are all just the beginning.

Greenery and nature will take centre stage for the capital.

While Greater London has 47% of green space, according to Green Information for Greater London*, this figure needs to increase with sustainability a key component of building. Expect living walls and urban farms housed on rooftops that provide food for residents and office workers or parks that will generate sustainable energy through photosynthesis for nearby buildings.

How we deliver mobility solutions is also changing with last mile delivery and autonomous vehicles. We must advocate for a

65

Planning in London

new land-use relationship with mobility. There are two trends worth identifying here. The first is the role of transit and how regional mobility services are being provided. The second is the impact of ride-share, automated and driver-less vehicles and micro-mobility on the right-of-way. With so many modes of mobility all vying for the space between the curbs and the pavement, the design and management of mobility modes needs to transform.

The repurposed asset If flexibility is the key to future resiliency, imagine what a modular ‘Universal Building’ that can easily change uses over time would mean. Addressing the issue of embodied carbon, this concept is well-timed with the rethinking of historical city ‘zoning’ or perhaps within areas such as in the City or Canary Wharf, where plans are being considered to reduce office space to make way for residential. With London looking

ABOVE: CRTKL Smart City diagram – Digital Twins at a city scale create digital replicas of the urban environment.

When connected with live data , they can be used to monitor, inform, analyse, optimise and simulate how we use our cities, according to CRTKL.

>>>

URBAN DESIGN | FEDERICA BURICCO

>>> to identify space for over 52,000 new homes per year the repurposing of its current buildings and carparks could be key.

Fixed structures bound by long leases will instead be carved up to make way for more flexible models that incorporate residential, hospitality, workplace, healthcare, education and transit offerings.

These spaces begin to form a series of interconnected urban rooms, threaded together using both hard and soft landscaping in the form of external courtyards and curated public amenity. This arrangement also maximises active frontages on the street periphery as well as throughout the interior, with new modular pop-up concepts such as the Sidewalk POD transforming underutilised public space into new commercial opportunities. Creating such permeability and variety will be the key in encouraging footfall and maintaining the vibrancy of these newly arranged spaces and uses.

The workplace and the urban core Hybrid working has become the norm - according to a recent survey by the Office for National Statistics at least 50 per cent of London employees are continuing to work from home.

What hybrid means in the context of a working environment has expanded beyond the ‘office versus home’ conversation.

The desire now is ‘Work From Anywhere’ (WFA). Whether in the gym, café, car, bar, beach or other - people want autonomy over how, when and where they work. The emphasis will be on delivery, not location. As work shifts from in person to online and physical office space becomes secondary to streamlined workflows, greater emphasis will be placed on diversifying the urban core and supplementing what was a Central Business District with more civic and public functions. While the office and its typical business functions will remain pivotal for some, others can capitalise on what is now unoccupied space with new offerings that attract new audiences. In both instances there is an opportunity to re-imagine existing spaces or re-purpose them into a hybrid, flexible concept. Reinvigorated lobby spaces for example, can become lively areas that serve officebased and mobile/virtual clients, partners, colleagues and the greater community. No longer just a space to pass through, lobbies can be activated and even monetised with the addition of private phone booths, reservable co- working spaces, small coffee stands and the like that draw people into a building that they would never have stepped foot inside otherwise.

Additionally, landlords can offer ‘spec suites’ that have spaces pre-built for particular tenant types. While some will use coworking facilities as a way to provide this hub-and-spoke solution, we will also see companies building or owning their own distributed workplace models.

Global architecture practice, CallisonRTKL (CRTKL) defines the new behavioural changes shaping the built environment in London

66

Planning in London

The metaverse Today’s digital shift continues to be a paradigmatic change for

CRTKL London office – Office life is changing in London, according to CallisonRTKL

both cities and the practice of planning, landscape architecture and urban design. It influences the way cities and public spaces are conceived in two main ways: first through the rise of databased decision making, management or design; and second through the extensive and rapid deployment of digital infrastructures in the environment.

From digital wayfinding, WiFi kiosks, electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, solar-powered rubbish compactors and phone chargers, to sensors embedded in the pavement that manage street lighting or advanced metering technology to manage utilities. All future buildings and infrastructure will ‘communicate’ or collaborate with each other to provide more effective energy usage, seamless mobility and an increased user experience.

By leveraging this technology, London can become smarter about its delivery of urban and public services and derive new environmental and economic gains. By applying a digital overlay to the improvements needed for better human experience, we create cities smart enough to sustain and heal themselves – places that give back to their people and planet.

Whatever results come out of the new Planning Bill announcement due this spring it is certain that the future of urban planning should now be on designing and developing areas, not to solve physical problems but to meet social needs and achieve sustainable goals while expanding the economic opportunity of the capital. Communities need to have their say at a local level through a modernised planning system that empowers communities and the Local Authorities to deliver environmentally-friendly developments the capital needs. n * https://www.gigl.org.uk/keyfigures/

CITY OF SOUTHWARK 2033 | LARS CHRISTIAN

City of Southwark 2033 Lars Christian sets out eleven strategic steps for Southwark's (central) development areas, bluegreen network, high streets, neighbourhood s and public health – to prosper, become carbon neutral and e/cycling-first – within a decade

Lars Christian, Urban Pilot, London Bermondsey & Scandinavia

Southwark has been my place of residence for ten years soon (mostly on the border between Bermondsey and Rotherhithe), my place of marriage, nearby my place of birth (Ladywell), and the second longest place I have lived in the UK, after Edinburgh.

Southwark is according to a government quango not a term inhabitants of the borough identify with, so cannot be awarded City status, despite having a cathedral (1905) and been a borough (1900) for over a century.

At present Southwark is the borough with the most local authority housing in the capital, and with the highest proportion of local authority owned land.

Southwark has seven tube stations, seven overground stations, 13 train stations, one London terminus and western Europe's highest building.

Southwark houses 1.5 universities (with one nearby further east), two major museums, two larger theatres, two teaching hospitals and one (of four) major A&Es. Southwark has maybe only one (remaining) major high street (day+eve), one major town centre, the riverside and a few (evening) hospitality centres, one (major) clubbing venue, one (smaller) shopping centre, one velodrome.

Parts of Southwark have experienced comprehensive transformation from the 1980s, starting with South Bank Uni, Shad Thames, the Jubilee Line, Canada Water/Surrey Quays, Tate Modern/Bankside, More London/the Shard, and presently for a second time over, Elephant & Castle.

Southwark houses one of a dozen larger development areas in Inner London – Elephant & Castle/Walworth. As well as (potentially) four further – Bankside, Canada Water, Bermondsey (Biscuit Factory) and/or Old Kent Road.

Bordering Southwark are several so called Opportunity Areas, the biggest being Vauxhall, Waterloo and potentially Deptford Park/Landings, Bermondsey South (Millwall The Den) and Convoys Wharf (bordering Deptford Riverside/Greenwich).

Strategic steps for zero-carbon & healthy e/-bike living One Why I identify eight of the above areas as 'potential' rather than 'actual', is either because they are more trickle than fast phased, or not at all (the two latter). Raising Southwark's and Lewisham's ambitions and aspirations for the eight areas is a first strategic step. A mammoth increase of e-/cycling, public health, canal & public realm ambitions and aspirations included.

Two Until the 1980s, five of the eight development areas were connected by the (Grand) Surrey Canal, connecting the river and the Rotherhithe peninsula as far as Deptford, Peckham and Walworth/Newington, of which maybe 90% of the canal may still exist under turf and tarmac. Reinstating physical and visual connections between the eight areas is a second strategic step to establish a recognised (physical) identity in this central/east

www.planninginlondon.com

and north part respectively of the two boroughs.

Three The Burgess Park connects the western and central parts of Southwark. A third strategic step is to physically connect this central park with Kennington Park, Peckham, Southwark Park, Canada Water, Surrey Docks & Quay, Deptford Park, New Cross, Deptford & Creek, Greenwich, Lewisham and the river Thames. Initially as a blue-green network for biodiversity, walking and cycling (see map), and subsequently maybe in places for canoes, rowers and canal barges.

Four Add (physical) high streets (functions) to the above mentioned blue-green network. Two possible places would be along the one mile northern edge of Burgess Park. Where a tree line boulevard with triple wide pavements, would contain 100+ diverse business, artists, culture, craft, retail and hospitality units facing south/south east. As well as a similar number of units along the two mile restored blue-green network from the eastern end of Burgess Park and Old Kent Road, through (formerly) Peckham New Town, potentially as far Deptford (Park & Landings), Convoys Wharf, Surrey Docks and Canada Water.

Attracting and serving half a million inhabitants and workers within a one mile cycling distance in three boroughs south of the river. Triple wide pavements accommodating seating and trees one third left and right, with one third middle of the pavement reserved for pedestrians.

Five Enhance the public transport network serving the proposed high streets, blue-green network, parks & canal – for passengers and cyclists alike. Initially by (re)establishing three train stations (see map). One where the orbital Overground crosses Old Kent Road, near the adjacent restored canal (10 trains + 36 buses per hour off-peak in each direction). The second near Deptford & Folkestone Parks, on the Overground lines between New Cross & Gate, the city frindge and Dalston Junction, potentially also linking up with Lewisham (12 trains/hour). The third station at the western end of Burgess Park, on the Thameslink line between Elephant & Castle, Denmark, Herne and Tulse Hills (6 trains + 70 buses/hour).

Six At present, the centre third of the borough contains few functions, institutions and attractions beyond local interest (see map). A sixth strategic step is to locate London-wide or further afield strategic institutions, destinations and attractions to this central inner southern London location. Establish multi-storey mixed-use light industry, arts & craft, logistic 'brick' warehouses (see PiL 109/19). And increase the density of activities and attractions on the ground floors in existing and new residential and office buildings – nursery, sports, social and/or elderly facilities included.

Seven Increase accessibility by re-connecting Waterloo and Waterloo East stations. A Crossrail South through train service that would cut the journey time from Clapham Junction to Lewisham or Greenwich to 30 mins on a full stop service. Opening >>>

Issue 121 April-June 2022

67

CITY OF SOUTHWARK 2033 | LARS CHRISTIAN

>>> and altering commuter and travel patterns and destinations south of the river. Potentially with reopened train stations at Bermondsey Spa, Old Kent Road, Deptford & Folkestone Parks and/or Lambeth Bridge (see map).

Eight To promote good, above average and superb physical and mental health among all inhabitants – the young and the elderly included – establish a sports, activity and children's linear national park along the river Thames from the South Bank to Greenwich (see PiL 103/17). Initiate and establish the following functions every ⅓ km to ¼ mile, to reactivate the rather sedated 4½ mile section of the river side east of Tower Bridge (1), as well as along the proposed blue-green network elsewhere (see map): Children's playground or nursery, gym or sports court or hall, barista or catering van. Move the HMS Belfast to, and establish an urban beach and lido at Rotherhithe east and north respectively (2).

Nine A ninth strategic step is to establish an e-/cycling-first policy throughout the 6 sq mile area inside the orbital Overground in Southwark – for all – the young and the elderly included. Extend the TfL bike share throughout this area.

Introduce a congestion charge light at ￡1.55, for crossing the orbital Overground in both directions during peak hours.

Reduce the cross river Rotherhithe–Canary Wharf ferry ticket by a third to ￡1.65, bus transfer and bike included.

Ten Commission 100 offshore windmills and install half a million solar panels – one per inhabitants and employee – by replacing all residential and commercial roof surfaces.

Southwark's total energy needs equal apx 4TWh or 1GW installed capacity, buildings, construction and transport included (3). This should be sources sustainably either as wind, solar or geothermal – now rather than in the medium future.

Eleven A last strategic step, is to strengthen place images and place identity by revising place names used in the central parts of Southwark. More than half a dozen (partly overlapping) place names are used at present: Elephant & Castle, Walworth, Newington, Burgess, Old Kent Road, Bricklayers Arm. Hatcham, Peckham New Town and (Grand) Surrey Canal were used in the past. The term Southwark (southern work) is used in half a dozen places at its periphery: tube station, bridge, cathedral, court, park, theatre. Also see text box.

Afterword Southwark is historically the poorer 'half' of central London.

This was partly magnified after the second world war by 'central' Southwark zoned for (social) housing and light industry/logistics (4). First reversed in the 1980s by the South Bank Uni and Shad Thames and gradually from the 1990s elsewhere. Southwark can continue and/or accelerate this process, and become the leading carbon neutral and e/cycling-first inner southern London borough. With a great(er)

68

Planning in London

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

!"#$%&'%(&)#*+,

,$%),(6.0-*%.0%'50--./

+&,-$).!/!,0$-1&$,!20#-13)$*!),4!,0$-1& 5)$*'!/!&&'%6*&!%$64!"%$&&,#$!70#$!50-&,-6) mix of social, educational and employment offers, groups and classes. A majority of which choose e-/cycling for local journeys. And by providing attractions, services and job opportunities to locals, visitors and commuters, the self-employed and start-ups, craftspeople and artists, the young and the elderly alike. Near to where more than two-thirds of a million people live, work, shop and/or recreate. On a daily, evening, weekend and/or weekday basis. n Socio-cultural place studies Guidance prepared in the mid naughties aimed to develop a greater understanding of town centres that experience fast democratic and physical changes and growth. The use of place, place interests and place images provide a framework for stakeholders' views on urban change. The guidance captures diversity, examines place making, challenges (exclusive) planning processes. For illustrated guidance, see urbanpilot.blogspot.com.

! ! "&$=0,4'&+

! ! ! >&5-70$4!()$* +),).!2-$&&-

! ! !

8.4!9&,-!:0)4 ;)-<1)=

,-.%/011

/..

0=6.&

&$,!?&36'1)= !'1036,%!4&!&.05=&,-!)$&)'!"$&4#$!$6!&$!<$0''6,%'!/!70$=&$!<),).!"%.#&#$!.)$%&$ ).!-$)6,!'-)-60,'!"$()=#$!6,'-6-#-60,' !4&'-6,)-60,'!/!)--$)<-60,'!"'-)$'#*!

Youth's place images, interests & uses Children, teenagers, youths, the elderly, minorities are less represented or represented very late in place making, redevelopment, planning (processes), local politics. For more than a generation, Scandinavian countries have reverse and made up for this deficit.

Socio-cultural place studies is one tool that is used in Greater Oslo and elsewhere for more than 15 years to engage, acknowledge and interpret adolescence's (and/or other less represented stakeholders) place images, place interests and use of place. Prior to or early on in an architectural or planning process, redevelopment or similar.

C21st (hospitality) high streets The four major shopping destinations in Inner South London are: Wandsworth, Putney, Peckham, Lewisham. As for hospitality destinations, the four major in Southwark outside zone one are

www.planninginlondon.com

maybe: East Dulwich, Camberwell, Peckham, Canada Water (clubbing). Further west: Brixton, Clapham HS, Clapham J. Further east: Blackheath, Greenwich, Greenwich N (concerts, events). Adding to either category is ambitious, difficult to plan, difficult to accomplish, in Southwark and elsewhere (see PiL 101/17). Three successes, two with stratospheric (public) investments, are Canary Wharf, Shepherd Bush, Stratford.

Notes (1) Only three locations draw crowds to the river at present east of Shad Thames, at Surrey Docks Farm, Salt Quay and Angel Pub. (2) The lido at London Field's attracts ⅓ mn and the 24/7 free lido at Brisbane South Bank several million visitors annually.

(3) 120TWh London total 2018; 91TWh buildings, 22TWh transport, 2TWh industry. Installed solar capacity per capita: UK 200W; Japan, Germany, NL, Belgium 400-600W. (4) Lewisham has again granted planning permissions for social housing towers (affordable), not in or near any of their nine town centres, but adjacent to the biggest recycling incinerator in inner London.

Issue 121 April-June 2022

69

WHEN THE WIND BLOWS | SIMON RICKETTS

When the wind blows This is a precarious moment for the country’s approach to the climate crisis, says Simon Ricketts

Simon Ricketts is a partner with Town Legal LLP From Simon’s blog at simonicity.com/author/sim onicity/ Personal views, et cetera

70

Planning in London

Relax – this article is about on shore wind turbines rather that contribute to radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, than nuclear fallout. minimise vulnerability and improve resilience; encourage the But there is somewhat of a “dig for victory” feel to our cur- reuse of existing resources, including the conversion of existing rent conversations about energy. If we all just turn down our buildings; and support renewable and low carbon energy and thermostats by one degree and so on. associated infrastructure.”

Against the urgent need for greater energy security, against When the update was published the Government’s response the escalating costs of energy and fuel (which make “levelling to consultation stated that 20 per cent of respondents to that up” a side show) and of course against the largest and most draft section of the framework “recognised the importance of relentless horseman of the apocalypse, climate change – there climate change and indicated a need for stronger terminology to is one central question: How can we reduce our energy require- reflect this, such as specific references to the net zero target and ments and maximise the potential of our “home grown” emphasis on renewable energy” and stated that the sources of energy?

Government is “committed to meeting its climate change objecFollowing this 8 March Government press statement UK to tives and recognises the concerns expressed across groups that phase out Russian oil imports (phasing out to be by the end of this chapter should explicitly reference the Net Zero emissions this year) SEE https://tinyurl.com/2782k2h5, we await a state- target. It is our intention to do a fuller review of the Framework to ment from the prime minister next week on the future of UK ensure it contributes to climate change mitigation/adaptation as energy supply. He was quoted last week as follows: fully as possible, as set out in the [planning white paper].”

“We need to intensify our self reliance as a transition with So we expect changes to the NPPF to strengthen planning more hydrocarbons, but what we also need to do is go for more policies on climate change. Can we expect any change of policy nuclear and much more use of renewable energy,” he said. “I’m in relation to on-shore wind in particular? going to be setting out an energy strategy and energy supply If you recall, following its 2015 election manifesto pledge, the strategy for the country in the days ahead.”

Government significantly toughened its stance in relation to on This is not going to be uncontroversial, both by reference to shore wind. Greg Clark issued this written ministerial statement “more hydrocarbons” (see eg on 18 June 2015 SEE: Johnson hints UK oil and gas https://tinyurl.com/mr3bh98u: output must rise to cut depen- There is one central question: how “I am today setting out new dence on Russia (The Guardian, considerations to be applied to can we reduce our energy 7 March 2022 SEE: wind energy developrequirements and maximise the proposed https://tinyurl.com/2p8nptfu)) ment so that local people have potential of our “home grown” the final say on wind farm applibut also unfortunately in relation to renewables, the further cations, fulfilling the commitsources of energy? encouragement of which should ment made in the Conservative surely be a no-brainer. election manifesto.

We had a wide-ranging clubhouse discussion back on 8 Subject to the transitional provision set out below, these conFebruary 2022, Renewable energy and using less energy: are siderations will take effect from 18 June and should be taken into you plugged in? which is worth listening back to HERE: account in planning decisions. I am also making a limited number https://tinyurl.com/3np9d4fc (it includes discussion of energy of consequential changes to planning guidance. reduction and of what is happening in relation to off shore wind When determining planning applications for wind energy energy which this blog post will not), and there is also my 23 development involving one or more wind turbines, local planning October 2021 blog post Net Zero Strategy: We Can Have Cake authorities should only grant planning permission if: & Eat It, HERE: https://tinyurl.com/25p6v4fh but all that seems · the development site is in an area identified as suitable for a long time ago set against recent events. Warning: this blog wind energy development in a Local or Neighbourhood Plan; post only considers England’s, particularly troubled, policy posi- and · following consultation, it can be demonstrated that the tion, rather than the rest of the United Kingdom. planning impacts identified by affected local communities have The July 2021 update to the NPPF did not contain any spe- been fully addressed and therefore the proposal has their backcific changes in relation to planning for climate change. ing.

Paragraph 152 (previously paragraph 148) still reads: In applying these new considerations, suitable areas for wind “The planning system should support the transition to a low energy development will need to have been allocated clearly in a carbon future in a changing climate, taking full account of flood Local or Neighbourhood Plan. Maps showing the wind resource as risk and coastal change. It should help to: shape places in ways favourable to wind turbines, or similar, will not be sufficient.

Whether a proposal has the backing of the affected local community is a planning judgement for the local planning authority.”

New subsidies for on shore wind were also ended.

The stance flowed through to the NPPF and the relevant paragraph remains – supportive of renewable energy in principle but with a killer footnote in relation to on shore wind: “158. When determining planning applications for renewable and low carbon development, local planning authorities should: (a) not require applicants to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy, and recognise that even smallscale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions; and (b) approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable 54 . Once suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy have been identified in plans, local planning authorities should expect subsequent applications for commercial scale projects outside these areas to demonstrate that the proposed location meets the criteria used in identifying suitable areas.”

Footnote 54: “(54) Except for applications for the repowering of existing wind turbines, a proposed wind energy development involving one or more turbines should not be considered acceptable unless it is in an area identified as suitable for wind energy development in the development plan; and, following consultation, it can be demonstrated that the planning impacts identified by the affected local community have been fully addressed and the proposal has their backing.”

BEIS’s December 2021 document Community Engagement and Benefits from Onshore Wind Developments – Good Practice Guidance for England HERE: https://tinyurl.com/bdhysc5m is, I suspect, largely wishful thinking without a remotely encouraging policy position. Is anyone aware of many (any?) local or neighbourhood plans which actually do identify suitable areas for wind energy development?

It seems that the wind could soon be changing if these media pieces are to be believed: Relaxing rules on wind farms could ease gas crisis (The Times, 9 March 2022) SEE: https://tinyurl.com/2ke2rsx4 BEIS to tackle onshore wind planning restrictions in England

www.planninginlondon.com

(renews.biz, 10 March 2022) SEE https://tinyurl.com/mr2vhnka The Government has of course been consulting on its suite of energy national policy statements, which set the policy basis for the determination of development consent order applications for nationally significant infrastructure projects. The draft national policy statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN 3) (September 2021) SEE: https://tinyurl.com/m5yped95 is not currently relevant to on shore wind, as on shore wind projects were entirely removed from the NSIP system. However, could we see a volte face on that restriction too?

It was interesting to read the detailed 9 March 2022 House of Commons briefing research paper on large solar farms SEE: https://tinyurl.com/29ey87jk and the Hansard transcript of the Westminster Hall debate on the subject. As with on shore wind, there are of course conflicting priorities to be weighed up – with on shore wind it is most often issues as to effect on protected landscapes and heritage assets and with solar farms most often the use of productive farm land (after all, food security is possibly as important as energy security).

I wonder whether the position in relation to solar farms would be clearer if the NPPF reflected the language of the draft renewable energy infrastructure NPS (which of course only applies to solar farms of 50 MW capacity or above): “Whilst the development of ground mounted solar arrays is not prohibited on sites of agricultural land classified 1, 2 and 3a, or designated for their natural beauty, or recognised for ecological or archaeological importance, the impacts of such are expected to be considered […]. It is recognised that at this scale, it is likely that applicants’ developments may use some agricultural land, however applicants should explain their choice of site, noting the preference for development to be on brownfield and non-agricultural land.”

But back to the big picture – what direction are the prime minister’s announcements likely to take? This is such a precarious moment for the country’s approach to the climate crisis, with siren calls from the likes of Farage for a “net-zero referendum” and from some, equally opportunistically, even for a reversal of the Government’s ban on fracking.

Dangerous times. n

View all posts by simonicity: https://simonicity.com/author/si monicity/

Issue 121 April-June 2022

71

DIGITAL PLANNING | SUE CHADWICK

Digital planning: beyond the rhetoric Sue Chadwick asks what digital planning means in practice and proposed actions that local and national government, and private developers could take to bring it forward

Dr Sue Chadwick is Strategic and Digital Planning Advisor at Pinsent Masons LLP

72

Planning in London

In August 2020 the planning white paper announced that it was “time for the planning system finally to move towards a modernised, open data approach… harnessing the benefits which digitisation can bring”.

18 months later, digitalisation is one of the few surviving aspirations from the Planning White Paper that has been transposed into the Levelling Up Agenda. Digital Connectivity is one of the four Missions in the Levelling Up White Paper, which states that “The ability to have a meaningful say on individual planning applications will be retained and improved through new digital technologies.”

This article asks what digital planning means in practice and proposed actions that local and national government, and private developers could take to bring it forward.

Digital Planning: definitions, impacts and benefits The planning white paper promised a future planning system based on “data, not documents”. This has a nice ring, but is short on detail, and ignores the fact that the current planning system is based on a definition of land as a ‘corporeal hereditament’ – the very opposite of digital.

This is unfortunate: in the modern world, land and buildings have digital identities that precede, enmesh with, and survive the physical and we need an evolved definition of land as a digital/physical hybrid where land is “corporeal” entity but also part of an interactive digital supply chain of goods and services.

The Government could also promote a “digital by default”, mandate for processes such as publication of notices and consultation, mirroring the current consultation on traffic regulation orders which promises to “bring this process into the digital world” A number of local planning authorities are already exploring ways that digitalisation of processes can both improve services while reducing resources: fifteen projects were awarded funding by the Local Digital Fund in 2021 including reducing invalid planning applications, back-office planning systems and digital place-based engagement. There is much more that could be done by local authorities, including strategic digital planning policies, the formal adoption of data standards, training on digital planning for officers and members and more collaboration on the creation and maintenance of datastores and exploring opportunities for collaborative data sharing, such as the London Data Charter promoted by London First.

The move towards digitisation will require a reboot of land acquisition procedures too. For example, as well as a survey of the physical land, developers could also scope the digital environment of their proposal – identifying data suppliers, the types of data that will have to be disclosed, and areas of potential future risks such as embedded biometric technologies. This initial scoping exercise could also explore ways that risks could

be mitigated with embedded safeguards and robust consent processes, and identify digital benefits, such as the creation of real-time environmental information on air quality or transport impacts and the potential for this data to contribute to national or local data stores. The impacts and the benefits would then be available for consideration alongside the physical changes, integrating the physical and digital elements of development within normal consent processes.

AI and planning decisions: making room for the machines For planning nerds, 1947 is the year of the first modern planning Act, but with hindsight it is far more significant as the year when Alan Turing gave a lecture to the London Mathematical Society on the Automatic Computing Engine and its transformative possibilities. In 2021 it’s increasingly clear that machine-based artificial intelligence offers multiple ways to improve planning – but raises new issues too, particularly where it is based on non-interpretable systems.

AI can help to automate a wide range of planning functions – for example it is increasingly easy to see how the current, inert process of environmental assessment could be replaced with a real-time platform of information flows, analytics and predictive modelling which can be interrogated to predict both the impacts of development and the effect of mitigating measures. The Biodiversity Metric is just one example of an analytic tool that will bring forward the movement towards metrification of environmental impacts and benefits, while the government has recently confirmed that its ENCA tool for measuring natural capital will be used as supplementary guidance to the Treasury's Green Book calculations.

However, AI has its issues. Poor datasets lead to biased decisions and raise ethical issues and there is a lack of public trust in ‘mutant algorithms’. The Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People has recently sent the Department for Work & Pensions a letter before action over its use of a computer algorithm which they claim is unfair to the disabled population; as algorithms begin to proliferate throughout the planning process, other disgruntled parties could seek to challenge decisions on the basis that they were not made by a human, or fully reasoned in a human sense. The Committee on Standards in Public Life has advised that public bodies ‘should not implement AI without understanding the legal framework’ but there is little evidence that potential legal and governance risks are considered in decisions to use AI in planning processes.

The most effective way to integrate emerging concerns about the new technology into the current system is to address those issues transparently at all levels of the planning function. Some local authorities such as Manchester City Council already have strategic digital policies; these should include, at a minimum, an explanation of what AI is, the princi-

pal benefits and risks, the relevant legal and policy context and where to go for further information. Most local authorities implement the use of automated technologies through the use of externally procured software; the process should include questions on data sourcing and training, equalities issues, cyber security, liability for defects, and data ownership and sharing. Finally, where AI is involved in any aspect of a planning decision, it would be good practice to acknowledge and address this in the decision, itself, alongside any other legal implications.

Digital Ethics: embedding good practice for a digital future Algorithmic decision-making is a daunting prospect, but the human brain is the ultimate “black box”, influenced by political affiliations, unconscious bias, or even the contents of its host’s last meal. Existing legal and procedural mechanisms exist to provide a coherent framework that makes public decisions more transparent and accountable; if the planning system is to make the most of technology while still maintaining public trust, these existing frameworks need to include considerations specific to a digital world.

There is no legal definition of ethics, but there are some regulatory safeguards that protect ethical standards. Public engagement is secured through a range of publicity and consultation requirements in the planning process, planning decisions must take account of equalities and human rights implications and local authorities are bound by the Nolan

www.planninginlondon.com

Principles and codes of conduct.

Emerging technologies disrupt these considerations: while smart engagement has the ability to open up the planning process to new participants, it may exclude others unless adequate protections are put in place. When an algorithm has been trained on inadequate data or programmed badly its outputs can embed and amplify social inequities. Sensory technologies such as live facial recognition engage and infringe human rights to privacy. We need to expand our current codes and standards to include specific data ethics considerations and there are some emerging that are specific to property such as the six principles proposed by the RED Foundation and the 10 Principles of the Locus Charter.

Conclusion Back in 1902, Ebeneezer Howard recognised that his radical re-visioning of urban development could only be achieved through ‘the hearty co-operation of men and of women experienced in very numerous departments of human activity’.

The Government published its AI Strategy last September, is developing a National Data Strategy, and testing a new Transparency Standard for the use of AI in the public sector.

This is the perfect time for co-operative local authorities to work with forward-looking developers and trusted data institutions on the co-creation, not just of policies and standards, but good digital practice at every stage of the development process. n

This piece is a summary of a paper completed after a year working as a Research Fellow at the Open Data Institute. The paper can be viewed here: https://tinyurl.com/3547nadv

Issue 121 April-June 2022

73

INDUSTRIAL LAND | NICOLAS BOSETTI

London’s need for more industrial land Finding ways of fitting industrial land back into the city won’t be easy – but the Commission firmly believes that not doing so will cost a lot more says Nicolas Bosetti

Nicolas Bosetti is Head of Data and Insight at Centre for London

74

Planning in London

London has gone from having too much industrial land to not enough – and this shortage could be very costly for the capital. Centre for London has convened an independent Commission on the future of London’s industrial land, which reported earlier this year. This blog summarises some of the findings and recommendations that the commission made to decision makers.

As planners and developers will know (but few people outside that world will), industrial land accommodates a wide range of economic activities. Some of this land corresponds to our old idea of what industry looks like, for example the Tate and Lyle golden syrup factory in the Royal Docks, but most industrial land hosts a wide range of economic activities and essential infrastructure, from waste recycling to hubs where deliveries are moved from big lorries to small vans, and from artisan gin makers to data centres.

London government, backed by national policy, have released almost a quarter of London’s industrial land since 2000, to be used for other activities, mostly housing. At the same time demand for industrial land has not decreased – it’s even enjoyed a renewal recently as makers and delivery companies compete for space to locate their business in London, or serve their London markets. Now vacancy rates on industrial are extremely low.

This shortage of industrial land has very real consequences for the city: entrepreneurs struggle to find space to start a business or grow theirs in London. Some employers are pushed out

or cease operating, which reduces local employment opportunities. Their supply chains are being disrupted, which means longer journeys from depots outside London, adding to air pollution and carbon emissions. The lack of industrial land makes a lot of services more expensive for London consumers and businesses – as prices are pushed up by higher London rents or higher transport costs to bring goods into the city. This affects activities from vehicle repair to food and catering all the way to construction of new homes.

So we know we need more industrial space, but how do we make this happen in a city which is already very built up and where land is at a premium, while we are nowhere near meeting our housing need?

The first solution will be for boroughs to retain their existing industrial floor area, as this is much easier than try to provide some in new places. This is easier said than done, as a lot of industrial space is well connected and has potential to create a new sustainable neighbourhood, and has been earmarked for redevelopment into housing. Where this is the case industrial activities will need to be re-housed either on the site or somewhere else suitable, to ensure they are not lost. There are also more examples of colocation – where industrial activities, offices and housing are side by side or on top of each other. This won’t work for all activities but there are some that work well together with the right sound proofing and street design – for example small makers or artists’ studios, or cargo bike depots.

The second solution involves densifying the existing indus-

IMAGES of industrial development in London FAR LEFT: Barking & Dagenham

trial land – whether this is adding mezzanines or sharing yard space to add an extra building, or building a new multistorey shed. As land values have been increasing, more developers are considering this kind of development, but it can be technically complex.

The development industry and local authorities can be ner-

www.planninginlondon.com

vous about delivering multi-story sheds or co-located developments as these feel new to them, and to their future occupiers.

The Commission thinks the Mayor, backed by Government, should make a new fund available to encourage multi-story and co-located developments to take place. Publicly-owned land that is suitable for industrial activities should also be used as an exemplar. And after construction is completed, it’s important that developers choose management companies that understand the needs of industrial occupiers and make sure the space is suitable for their operations.

On top of this, boroughs should seek to use vacant spaces for industrial activities: former high street shops could be perfect homes for makerspaces, thus encouraging new economic activities to take place in town centres. At the same time, big box retail spaces that are no longer needed as people shop more online could host industrial occupiers who need more space. There may also be some spaces on the other side of the London boundary that are particularly well connected by road or rail, and which could become key employment spaces with investment from government.

While the Commission is asking boroughs to play a leading role in delivering sufficient industrial spaces, boroughs will need support on how to do this well. It’s essential that industrial land occupiers club together to communicate their needs better to the city’s planners. Industrial businesses should also convince real estate intelligence companies to make data on their needs and on what kind of industrial space is needed in different parts of the city.

Finding ways of fitting industrial land back into the city won’t be easy – but the Commission firmly believes that not doing so will cost a lot more. n

BELOW: Peckham Photos: Nikita Quarshie

If you’d like to know more about the importance of industrial land to London and our plan of action to protect it, the Commission’s final report is available here: https://www.centreforlondon.or g/publication/london-industrialfuture/ Centre for London is the capital’s independent think tank. Nicolas supported the work of the Industrial Land Commission, which was chaired by Liz Peace CBE

Issue 121 April-June 2022

75

GREEN BELT | DAVID CHURCHILL

Green belt protection bill and recent case law David Churchill believes that all too often the Green Belt provides arbitrary protection for previously developed sites which provide little or no aesthetic or natural value

David Churchill is a partner in Carter Jonas London

76

Planning in London

The Green Belt Protection Bill, a Private Members’ Bill which aims to restrict councils’ ability to release Green Belt land for development, is currently working its way through Parliament. The Bill also proposes that if such land is used for development purposes, alternative land is designated as Green Belt in its place.

Originally introducing the Bill to the Commons in 2019, its sponsor Sir Christopher said, ‘When we sing about our green and pleasant land, many of us reflect on how much less green and more ugly it would be but for our Green Belt.’ Worryingly, this comment exemplifies an almost universal misunderstanding of the Green Belt: one which has stymied much-needed development for decades.

At the root of this problem is a misunderstanding, among residents but also some politicians too, about what the Green Belt was intended to be and now is.

Green Belts have existed in planning policy since the first Town and Country Planning Act in 1947, as a means of preventing urban sprawl. In principle this is a ring of countryside around a town or city where development is resisted in favour of agriculture, forestry and outdoor leisure. But in reality the Green Belt far from the ring of rolling hills that some imagine: its boundaries were not drawn up with great consideration and in fine detail but with a broad brush which sweeps up some of the least green and least pleasant sites.

It is not uncommon for the requirements of the planning system to protect the Green Belt to be misinterpreted or misapplied, whether wittingly or otherwise. We saw the situation unfold in relation to the St Albans Local Plan where sites in the Green Belt suitable for fewer than 400 units (the St Albans threshold for strategic sites) were not considered for allocation regardless of their sustainability or existing use. This led to the preference for larger sites, which arguably had a greater impact on the Green Belt. This was one of the contributing factors which led to the failure of the Local Plan. Not only does it defy the essence of the guidance in the NPPF, but it also defies logic.

We need to move away from the position whereby the Green Belt is seen as sacrosanct, so that sustainable new homes can be delivered in such a way that their presence ‘enhances’ and ‘greens’ the Green Belt – as specified in the Levelling Up White Paper. We feel that it is right that the case for development in certain locations should be more robust, but also that Green Belt boundaries should be amended in Local Plans where necessary. But this requires Local Plans to be brought forward, which seems increasingly difficult.

It is perhaps inevitable, given the dire shortage of homes and certain facilities, that development within land designated as Green Belt is increasingly permitted. Carter Jonas, acting on behalf of Axis Land Partnerships Ltd, recently achieved planning consent, again following an appeal, for a significant retirement

village facility which falls entirely within the Cambridge Green Belt. The retirement village will provide extra care housing and associated care, leisure and health and wellbeing facilities for older people. The scheme will also deliver a countryside park comprising approximately 21 hectares of publicly accessible green space on the edge of the village. The development proposals were initially refused by on the grounds of conflict between the retirement village element of the proposals and national and local planning policies concerning Green Belt development.

The appeal decision, however, recognised that the local need for specialist older people’s housing along with the wider public and biodiversity benefits of the scheme clearly outweighed the harm to the Cambridge Green Belt arising from the development. it is clear that the Cambridge Green Belt is overly restrictive, impacting on the provision of these much-needed facilities as well as house price affordability. Just as with the housing scheme mentioned previously, the consented scheme provides substantial biodiversity enhancements and a strong case was made in favour of sensitive development on the Green Belt.

As these two situations demonstrate, the flawed application of Green Belt policies results in far too many planning applications being determined at appeal. And in the absence of appropriate, deliverable and up-to-date Local Plans, this number is increasing. Appeals determine planning applications based only on their own merits, and so the system becomes one of development control rather being led by strategic planning. Strategic planning should exist to consider planning applications in the context of broader considerations including transport connectivity and sustainability, but progress on Local Plans up and down the country is at an all-time low as result of underresourcing, political uncertainty, and moratoriums imposed as a result of disproportionate reactions to environmental issues such as water neutrality. The absence of strategic planning means that substantial schemes are often considered in independently of these considerations. If the Local Plan process was more effective, ample suitable land would be allocated through the planning system and the appeals process used infrequently.

Instead we seem to be moving towards a system whereby appeals are the only means of moving development forward and the strategic element of planning has taken a back seat.

There is a strong case to be made, on many levels, for site allocations for new developments to be based on access to sustainable transport. Indeed this requirement exists in policy but it is not consistently upheld by the current system.

Contrary to comments made by the Prime Minister at last October’s Conservative Party Conference, - in which Boris Johnson rallied against greenfield development, referring to the ‘constant anxiety’ of those living in the Home Counties over their ‘immemorial view of chalk downland’ being ‘desecrated by

ugly new homes’ – we do not have enough redundant brownfield sites to accommodate housing need. Furthermore, brownfield sites require a considerable investment in time and resources, are typically smaller than greenfield sites, and are limited in their ability to provide social infrastructure such as employment, community and healthcare facilities.

If we are to see 300,000 homes built each year, a substantial number must be constructed on greenfield land, in accordance with the NPPF’s requirement for development to be sustainable.

The future requirement for a minimum 10% biodiversity net gain, along with the move towards energy efficient boilers and other initiatives address sustainability goals to a significant extent. But the outstanding issue is transport. A recent report by Transport for New Homes (Building Car Dependency: The Tarmac Suburbs of the Future) stated that new homes on greenfield sites continued to be designed around the car - often with as many as three parking spaces per home. The report found that greenfield housing has become increasingly car-based in the past three years and that the trend for building with the car in mind extended beyond housing, with out-of-town retail, leisure, food outlets and employment orientated around new road systems. It criticised planners as having a ‘car-park to car-park’ mentality.

New housing on greenfield better served by public transport will become a reality only with proper strategic planning and meaningful investment in infrastructure planning. The NPPF, in both paragraphs 8 and 20, refers to the need for ‘identifying and coordinating the provision of infrastructure’ yet the approach to infrastructure in Local Plans – where they do exist and are up-todate - tends to be limited. This is compounded by the problem that within the two-tier system, transport planning is the responsibility of county councils, while Local Plans are produced on a borough / district level. It may be that for this reason that the Government’s 2020 National Infrastructure Strategy and 2016 Infrastructure Delivery Plan were not successfully acted upon local level.

In the absence of a Planning Bill which had initially promised so much change, it is impossible to know what the future holds regarding Green Belt reform. The Levelling Up White Paper appears retrogressive in this respect, focussing on ‘enhancing and maintaining protection of the Green Belt’. It proposes ‘improved Green Belts around towns and cities, supported by Local Nature Recovery Strategies reflected in plan making, and woodland creation supported across the UK’ and that the Government ‘plans to empower local leaders and communities to reimagine their urban green space and improve access for communities who lack it’, which, it says again, ‘includes enhancing and maintaining protection of the Green Belt’. Furthermore it adds that the Government will develop plans for ‘further greening’ the Green Belt, and wants to see improved Green Belt around towns and cities.

www.planninginlondon.com

The Levelling Up White Paper, following the decision to ‘tidy up planning’ rather than revolutionise it in a new Planning Bill, is now, we are told the policy from which future planning legislation will emerge. It is concerning, therefore, that in addition to tightening, rather than reforming Green Belt policy, the document makes no mention of housing targets.

More recently still the new housing minister Stuart Andrew has suggested that the housing targets system will change from being a mandatory minimum to advisory maximum and is reconsidering how the five-year housing land supply target can ‘align with and support the levelling-up agenda’.

Unfortunately, all too often the Green Belt provides arbitrary protection for previously developed sites which provide little or no aesthetic or natural value. These are sites which could provide much needed housing, including affordable housing, while also increasing biodiversity and creating public open spaces. Policies to protect such sites do little to address either the levelling up agenda or the housing crisis. n

IMAGES: Blenheim Estate Homes show the appropriate use of greenfield land.

Issue 121 April-June 2022

77

BOOKS: ESSENTIAL URBAN DESIGN BY ROB COWAN

Essential Urban Design

by Rob Cowan Cowan’s book should become an essential handbook for all who are involved in making places, says Andrew Rogers

Rob Cowan introduced this book to readers on page 88 of PiL118, July 2021

Subtitled “A Handbook for Architects, Designers and Planners”, this excellent book is well written in plain language and includes many simple illustrations.

The tone of the book is set out in its introduction, which notes that there are two things wrong with the term ‘urban design’. The first is the word ‘urban’ and the second is the word ‘design’ because urban “tends to make people think of development in towns and cities, whereas urban design is concerned with settlements of all sizes, including villages and rural settings”; and design “makes many people think of what architects and landscape architects do, rather than the much wider range of skills and activities involved in making places.”

The book proceeds to a comprehensive review of how good place-making can be produced and assessed. Starting with a thorough and insightful history of the subject, it goes on to describe eight design objectives held to be necessary to good development, with notes on how to achieve them, and follows this with a broad discussion of context, character and quality in masterplanning. It also explains what to look for in design guides and codes - with useful advice on how to write successful ones - although to my mind it does get rather lost in the later sections on politics and local collaboration.

Along the way there is the observation that failures to contribute to good urban design have included “the architects who ignored context; the planners who focused on the process rather

Assets as smart as you are.

The world is changing rapidly, and you’re expected to be smarter, faster, more connected, more predictive, and accountable for your assets and operations.

Our new brand – Brightly – represents who we are and what we stand for. We are the global leader in intelligent asset management solutions, and our purpose is to power smarter assets and sustainable communities.

Discover a new world of asset management at confirm.solutions/welcome-to-brightly

than the physical form of development; and the highway engineers who ignored anything that was not quantifiable.” Cowan notes that “new, more flexible, ways of organising built environment professionals are needed…” partly because creative people “find ways of doing things that are not immediately obvious…”

In the body of the book are detailed explanations of design concepts such as mixed uses and tenures, understanding density, connected cities, neighbourhood structures, the promotion of health and wellbeing, and how to make things work, that are down to earth, wide-ranging and practical.

An example is this paragraph that explains what many planners and designers forget: “Basic human needs have changed little over millennia. People need food, shelter and clothing. They enjoy fresh air, green space and recreation, and do not like being cramped, or being too cold or too hot. They are well adapted for walking around. They enjoy socialising, though they tend to be suspicious of strangers. They can be prone to making short-term decisions that ignore the long-term consequences”.

And another section begins: “Buildings and spaces exist in four dimensions”. What I like most about Cowan’s book - aside from his description of the many and varied factors that contribute to urban design - are the clear line drawings and the numerous simple considerations that need to be borne in mind when dealing with urban design. It should indeed become an essential handbook for all those of us who are involved in making places. n

BOOKS: LEVELLING UP LEFT BEHIND PLACES | PETER TYLER

Levelling Up Left Behind Places: the scale and nature of the economic and policy challenge Co-author Professor Peter Tyler introduces the book Routledge £27.99 FROM: https://tinyurl.com/2 p8ccxb7

AUTHORS: Professor Ron Martin (University of Cambridge), Dr Ben Gardner (Cambridge Econometrics), Professor Andy Pike (Newcastle University), Professor Peter Sunley (University of Southampton) and Professor Peter Tyler (University of Cambridge)

This book provides a detailed, evidence based, discussion of the ‘left behind’ problem in the UK, a country that has one of the highest levels of spatial economic disparity among OECD economies, and where the Government has declared its determination to ‘level up’ economic performance and opportunity across country by establishing a Levelling Up Fund, appointing a Secretary of State for Levelling Up, rebranding a major ministry as the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and has recently published a Levelling Up White Paper on the problem. SEE: https://tinyurl.com/yc7vuzmz Against this background of policy activity, the book presents novel analyses of the scale, nature and geographies of the UK economically ‘left behind’ problem, and examines why past urban and regional policies, first introduced as far back as 1928, have not succeeded in achieving a more spatially equitable distribution of economic prosperity and opportunity.

The scale of the problem being addressed and how it has increased through time have been poorly understood by government. The authors estimate that, on average over the period 1961-2020, the UK Government invested on average £2.9 billion per annum in direct spatial policy (2020 prices), equivalent to around 0.15 per cent of GNI per annum over the period.

European Union Structural and Cohesion Policy support added around 0.12 per cent GNI (2020 prices) per annum to this from the late-1970s onwards. These broad estimates suggest that discretionary expenditure in the UK on urban and regional policy raphy in national policy making and economic governance; the when both domestic and EU spatial policy was in operation, was commitment of resources on a scale appropriate to the magniequivalent to 0.27 per cent per annum of UK GNI (2020 prices). tude of the task; a move towards a federated system of cityThis is dwarfed by mainstream spending programmes (by compar- region authorities with substantial devolved powers and funding; ison, the UK committed £14.5 billion (0.7 per cent of GNI) to and a corresponding strengthening of a bottom-up, place-based international aid in 2019). The UK approach can also be compared dimension to policy design and implementation. Although the to the German Aufbau Ost programme to level up economic book is focused on the UK, there are lessons from the policy disopportunities and prosperity in East German regions to those in cussion that will be of relevance for other countries in which govWest Germany following unification: since 1990 Germany had ernments face a similar challenge of levelling up those of their expended some €2trillion on this programme, roughly equivalent towns, cities and regions that have been left behind. The book recto £55billion per annum. The level of resources devoted to spatial ommends that the UK Government should: policy in the UK has thus been woefully inadequate given the • Grasp the transformative moment for local, regional and entrenched and cumulative nature of the problem. urban development policy as the United Kingdom adjusts to a Having identified a number of significant limitations and Post-Covid world and seeks a Net Zero Carbon future; weaknesses of past policy, the book goes on to argue that nothing • Establish a clear and binding national mission for ‘levelling up’; short of a major transformative spatial policy model will be neces- • Realise the potential of place in policy making; sary to reduce geographical eco• Decentralise and devolve The scale of the problem being towards a multi-level federal nomic inequalities. A number of key foundational principles are set addressed and how it has increased polity; out for what is argued should be a • Strengthen sub-national fundthrough time have been poorly ing and financing and adopt new mission-orientated strategy, including: the embedding of geogfinancing. n understood by government.

www.planninginlondon.com

Issue 121 April-June 2022

79

SERVICEPRINT T: +44 (0)20 3176 6878 E: info@serviceprint.net

FULL COLOUR PRINTING Fast, high quality printing service on your doorstep!

SCANNING SERVICES Digitise your old and new records, whether its for archiving purposes or photocopying.

We collect, scan and return your originals back.

OUR PRODUCTS

Visit our website for the full list of products

A4 Wire Brochure

A4 Perfect Bound Brochure

Foam Boards

A4 Stapled Bound Brochure

Standard Business Cards

Notepads

Visit: www.serviceprint.net

80

Planning in London

SERVICEPRINT

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 020 8215 3000 https://www.lbbd.gov.uk/residents/planning -and-building-control/ Chris Naylor Chief Executive London Borough of Barking and Dagenham chris.naylor@lbbd.gov.uk 020 8227 2137 Simon Green Predsident of Barking and Dagenham Chamber of Commerce info@bdchamber.co.uk 020 8591 6966 Jeremy Grint Divisional Director of Regeneration and Economic Development jeremy.grint@lbbd.gov.uk 020 8227 2443

London Borough of Barnet Planning and Building Control 2 Bristol Avenue Colindale London NW9 4EW 020 8359 3000 Fabien Gaudin Head of the Planning Service 020 8359 2000 There are 3 area teams Lesley Feldman is head of the Finchley and Golders Green area team lesley.feldman@barnet.gov.uk

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 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

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 Jim Kehoe Chief Planner jim.kehoe@bromley.gov.uk 020 8313 4441 Lisa Thornley Development Control Support Officer

lisa.thornley@bromley.gov.uk London Borough of Camden Town Hall Extension Argyle Street WC1H 8EQ 020 7974 4444 www.camden.gov.uk

Gwyn Richards Chief Planning Officer and Development Director gwynrichards@cityoflondon.gov.uk 020 7332 1700 London Borough of Croydon Development and Environment Bernard Weatherill House

8 Mint Walk, Croydon CR0 1EA 020 8726 6000 www.croydon.gov.uk/ planningandregeneration Chief Executive Ms Jo Negrini jo.negrini@croydon.gov.uk Director of Planning and Strategic Transport Ms Heather Cheeseborough heather.cheeseborough@croydon.gov.uk Director of Development Colm Lacey colm.lacey@croydon.gov.uk 020 8604 7367 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 121 April-June 2022

81

>>>

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 Spatial Planning Randall Macdonald 020 8356 8051 Director of Regeneration John Lumley john.lumley@hackney.gov.uk 020 8356 2138

Head of Development Management Andy Higham andy.higham@enfield.gov.uk 020 8379 3848 Planning Decisions Manager Sharon Davidson sharon.davidson@enfield.gov.uk 020 8379 3841 Transportation Planning David B Taylor david.b.taylor@enfield.gov.uk 020 8379 3576

Head of Planning Regeneration John Finlayson john.finlayson@lbhf.gov.uk 020 8753 6740

01708 433100 www.havering.gov.uk

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

82

Planning in London

Chief Executive Andrew Blake-Herbert andrew.blakeherbert@havering.gov.uk 01708 432201 Planning Control Manager Helen Oakerbee helen.oakerbee@havering.gov.uk 01708 432800 Planning and Building Control Simon Thelwell simon.thelwell@havering.gov.uk 01708 432685 Development & Transport Planning Martyn Thomas martyn.thomas@havering.gov.uk 01708 432845

020 8921 6426 www.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/planning London Borough Of Haringey Level 6 River Park House 225 High Road Wood Green London N22 8HQ

Assistant Director for Planning, Building Standards and Sustainability Emma Williamson emma.williamson@haringey.gov.uk Head of Planning Policy, Transport & Infrastructure Rob Krzyszowski rob.krzyszowski@haringey.gov.uk Head of Development Management Dean Hermitage dean.hermitage@haringey.gov.uk

020 8583 5555 www.hounslow.gov.uk/planning

Strategic Director of Housing , Planning & Communities Peter Matthew peter.matthew@hounslow.gov.uk Head of Development Management Marilyn Smith marilyn.smith@hounslow.gov.uk 020 8583 4994 Head of Regeneration & Spatial Planning Ian Rae ian.rae@hounslow.gov.uk 020 8583 2561

London Borough of Islington 222 Upper Street London N1 1XR 020 7527 6743 www.islington.gov.uk/planning Chief Executive Ms Lesley Seary lesley.seary@islington.gov.uk 020 7527 3136 Service Director of Planning & Development Karen Sullivan karen.sullivan@islington.gov.uk 020 7527 2949

020 8489 1400 www.haringey.gov.uk Director for Housing, Regeneration & Planning Dan Hawthorn dan.hawthorn@haringey.gov.uk

London Borough Of Hounslow Civic Centre Lampton Road Hounslow TW3 4DN

Chief Executive Niall Bolger niall.bolger@hounslow.gov.uk 020 8770 5203

The London Borough of Havering Town Hall Main Road Romford RM1 3BD

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

Chief Executive Tom Whiting tom.whiting@harrow.gov.uk 020 8420 9495

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

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

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

Divisional Director of Planning Paul Nichols paul.nichols@harrow.gov.uk 020 8736 6149

Head of Planning Policy Joanne Woodward joanne.woodward@enfield.gov.uk 020 8379 3881 Assistant Director Planning, Highways & Transportation Bob Griffiths bob.griffiths@enfield.gov.uk 020 8379 3676

Head of Planning & Enforcement James Rodger james.rodger@hillingdon.gov.uk 01895 250230

Team Leader for Planning & Projects Eshwyn Prabhu eshwin.prabhu@islington.gov.uk 020 7527 2450 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

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea The Town Hall Hornton Street London W8 7NX 020 7361 3000 planning@rbck.gov.uk

Chief Executive Ms Janet Senior janet.senior@lewisham.gov.uk 020 8314 8013 Development Manager Geoff Whittington geoff.whittington@lewisham.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 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 Lambeth Phoenix House 10 Wandsworth Road London SW8 2LL 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

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

Director of Housing and Regeneration Brian Reilly brian.reilly@richmondandwandsworth.gov.uk 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

Director of Environment and Regeneration Chris Lee chris.lee@merton.gov.uk 020 8545 3051

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 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

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

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

www.planninginlondon.com

020 8496 3000 www.walthamforest.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

London Borough of Redbridge 128-142 High Road Ilford London IG1 1DD

Head of Inward Investment & Enterprise Mark Lucas mark.lucas@redbridge.gov.uk 020 8708 2143

The London Borough Of Waltham Forest Town Hall London E17 4JF

Strategic Director of Environment, Housing & Regeneration Mary Morrisey mary.morrissey@sutton.gov.uk 020 8770 6101

The London Borough of Wandsworth Town Hall Wandsworth High Street London SW18 2PU 020 8871 6000 www.wandsworth.gov.uk 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 121 April-June 2022

>>>

83

Mark Hunter mhunter@wandsworth.gov.uk 020 8871 8418 Head of Forward Planning and Transportation John Stone jstone@wandsworth.gov.uk 020 8871 6628

City Of Westminster Westminster City Hall 64 Victoria Street London SW1E 6QP 020 7641 6500 www.westminster.gov.uk

OTHER ORGANISATIONS Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk London SE1 2AA 020 7983 4000 www.london.gov.uk Sadiq Khan Mayor of London mayor@london.gov.uk 020 7983 4000

Please notify any changes immediately by e-mail to planninginlondon@mac.com with the subject ‘planning in london directory’.

Chief Executive Stuart Love slove@westminster.gov.uk 020 7641 3091

Assistant Director, Planning (GLA) and City Planning (TfL) Lucinda Turner Head of Development Management John Finlayson Head of the London Plan and Growth Strategies Lisa Fairmaner lisa.fairmaner@london.gov.uk Planning Change Manager Peter Kemp

Greater London Authority Executive Director, Good Growth Philip Graham

Director of Planning 020 7641 2519 Head of City Policy and Strategy Barry Smith bsmith@westminster.gov.uk 020 7641 3052

WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPONSOR THIS DIRECTORY? Previous sponsors were Colliers and Knight Frank.

If maybe then please email editor@planninginlondon.com

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

info@designforlondon.gov.uk Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government

Planning Officers Society The Croft, 81 Walton Road, Aylesbury HP21 7SN tel: 01296 422161

020 7944 4400 enquiries.br@communities.gsi.gov.uk planning.policies@communities.gsi.gov.uk

Design For London City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA

Joanna Averley, director, chief planner Simon Gallagher, director, planning

Magazine of the Year (non-weekly) WINNER 2007 & finalist 2006 – 2012 & 2016 & 2018 International Building Press

Keep taking your PiL! Please complete and mail the form below with cheque for £99.00 or click SUBSCRIBE at www.planninginlondon.com and pay with PayPal or credit card

Avalon Planning, L B Barnet, Gilmartinley, Harvard College Library, London Wharf PLC, L B Islington, L B Greenwich, Sport England, Entec UK, Berkeley Group, Workspace Group, LB Bexley, RBK&C, RTPI, LB Bromley, PRP Architects, Durrants, 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, Cluttons, DPP, Savills, Henley Business School, Grosvenor, Sainsbury's, Hamptons International, Barratt Homes, National Grid, Network Rail, Foster + Partners, Gorkana Group, London & Continental Railways, London Communications Agency, Cardiff University, 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, Dominion Properties, WSP Indigo, Slaughter and May, LSE library, Assael Architecture, British Land Company ...

... 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

84

Planning in London

I would like to subscribe from:

Go to planninginlondon.com > Subscribe and pay online with

last issue 120 January 2022 this issue 121 April 2022 next issue 122 July 2022 I enclose a cheque for £99.00 (no VAT, payable to Planning in London) I am interested in advertising in the Advice directory (£300 for one year) Please debit my card £106 (£99+£6.00 for credit card administration, no VAT payable) Card type:

VISA

MASTERCARD

Card number: Expiry date:

security no:

Signature:

Tel:

Name on card:

Up to 5 Email addresses:

Firm: Card billing address:

Delivery address if different:

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

SHAPING LONDON | FARRELLS’ ALISTAIR BACKHOUSE

What’s Missing?

Allotments For All © Farrells

As creatives we naturally question and investigate. But how does this evolve to spark small actions within practice and our local community? asks Alistair Backhouse

Alistair Backhouse is an architect with Farrells

Sparking small actions Going beyond day-to-day project work, as creatives, we naturally look outside of defined parameters to question and investigate. From lunchtime debate with colleagues to whole office design reviews, opportunities like design competitions and thought leadership also provide a great opportunity to challenge each other’s ideas and develop our thinking. But how does this evolve to spark small actions within practice and our local community?

The pandemic gave us time to think and act locally. We naturally adjusted our focus to our neighbourhoods and local context and started looking at ways of improving our surroundings, asking ourselves 'What is missing?'. As a team, we started investigating, sketching and comparing ideas, with a strong focus on green space. One instance explored the conversion of the large O2 car park in North London into community allotments, reclaiming tarmacked infrastructure for nature and residents alike. Incorporating a new flexible pavilion space with a contemporary rammed earth walled garden, the local community would be provided with space to get their hands earthy and reconnect with nature, enjoying the

www.planninginlondon.com

associated health benefits. This vision for a resilient and productive urban community was one idea that saw urban agriculture sitting high on the agenda as those of us in city’s looked forward, towards a greener urban landscape.

Our proposal for The Property Week Great Design Challenge was a similar springboard for us to continue to develop these ideas, but this time within a defined architectural setting, reimagining how a tired 1970’s shopping centre could be retrofitted for the future. Envisioning a self-sufficient vessel of sustainable microecosystems, different natural and artificial components would act together to create and promote a circular and sustainable building. Deep floor plates and double height atriums would facilitate vertical farming, with solar, wind and water collection providing the nutrients for the ‘walled garden of the future’. Zero waste supermarkets and ‘Fix it don’t bin it’ repair and upcycling stores would act as commercial anchors, whilst a carefully curated programme of spaces ensured the building would act as a social hub from dawn through into the night. This exercise saw the shopping centre become an exciting typology through which we could >>>

Issue 121 April-June 2022

85

SHAPING LONDON | FARRELLS’ ALISTAIR BACKHOUSE

RIGHT: Property Week Design Competition - The Shopping Centre as an Ecosystem © Farrells

RIGHT: Integrated Green Landscape At The Royal Albert Docks © FARRELLS

86

Planning in London

apply our thinking, with a template for productive reuse that embraces positive sustainable outcomes within our towns and cities.

Intertwining these ideas within our project work is a process that is a carefully considered journey. As a result, smaller initiatives with a direct approach have therefore channelled this energy into more immediate tangible outcomes. For example, employing an annual programme with a local school, King Solomon Academy, as part of the RIBA Architecture Ambassadors initiative, has allowed us to share our profession and passion for sustainability and the future of our cities with students. It has created a space where the next generation can be involved with the conversation, developing grand ideas of their own whilst building upon a range of skills. Recent workshops aim to see bird boxes designed and produced out of recycled materials, initiating conversation around improved biodiversity within high density areas, whilst benefiting the wildlife that call the school home.

Never failing to be impressed by students’ enthusiasm and unfil-

tered creativity, this step has translated those earlier ideas into learning and into more immediate feasible outcomes which we aim to continue.

This year’s London festival of Architecture (LFA) theme of ‘Act’ could then not have been a more appropriate direction through which to further grow this action. Hosting an event in collaboration with our local school as part of the LFA programme, we hope to improve awareness of the importance of nature and natural landscapes within the urban environment.

With a focus on green productive space, our aim is to discuss simple strategies to tackle the climate and biodiversity emergency through small actions. Encouraging participation and improving our urban neighbourhoods, the event itself will centre on planting cuttings and seeds within the school that pupils and participants have cultivated at home. Our own cultivation has begun in the office, making the most of the natural light from our three-meterhigh windows, with discussions around turning our own workspace into a more permanent productive landscape already

www.planninginlondon.com

LEFT: Integrated Green Landscape At The Royal Albert Docks © FARRELLS

Issue 121 April-June 2022

>>>

87

SHAPING LONDON | FARRELLS’ ALISTAIR BACKHOUSE

RIGHT: Seed Planting For The LFA Event Commences ©FARRELLS

RIGHT: Proposal To Integrate Productive Community Landscapes Within Dense Environments © FARRELLS]

88

Planning in London

gaining momentum!

So where will this go next? While the office is about to become an allotment, hopefully acting as a catalyst for further conversation with clients, we are continuously working with the local community and the Church Street Ward Neighbourhood Forum to find potential funding streams, to deliver bottom-up initiatives in the local area. Competitions and thought leadership act as ideas incubators, where teams of passionate thinkers and designers share and develop ideas within and beyond ordinary practice work, making the most of diverse perspectives and experiences. Setting an agenda, they challenge us to problem solve, acting as a lightning rod for our contemplation and creativity, with these ideas polished and defined further as the journey here shows. Our ambition is that these small actions will lead to bigger outcomes, both within our local area and potentially at a larger scale. We would encourage everyone to see how their thinking can transform into quick wins and direct action, from one-on-one conversations, to group collaboration and larger organised initiatives, for this so often acts as a catalyst for positive local change. n

PiL READER OFFER:

get a FREE digital edition when you pre-order

The Environment Act 2021 one of the first books to provide a comprehensive overview of the Act specifically for the planning sector

COMING SOON SPRING 2022

£40 + p&p SCAN TO SHOP

Pre-order from bathpublishing.com

ADVICE

Advice

www.planninginlondon.com

Issue 121 April-June 2022

91

Get up to speed with the latest permitted changes of use with this new book & seminar A Practi al Guide to Permitted Changes of Use (Fourth Edition) Due for publication April 2022.

Hardback: £75

SEMINAR + FREE BOOK

Permitted Changes of Use Update 2022

£165 + VAT

When?

10am-1pm, Thursday 5 May Where?

In person: The Thomas Telford Theatre, One Great George Street, London, SW1P 3AA Remote: online via Zoom

Price includes free print and digital edition of: A Practical Guide to Permitted Changes of Use (4th ed) due April 2022 (worth £100 when bought together)

READER OFFERS Pre-order the book & get the digital edition FREE! Worth £75

Get the print & digital edition FREE by booking on the seminar now.

Read more at bathpublishing.com/planning