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 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-

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… 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

Although rather ironically entitled Planning for the Future, it was too white for its own good and has been binned

A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation. – Edmund Burke, 1790

Our patience will achieve more than our force. – Edmund Burke, 1790

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) 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 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

Levelling up:

five principles for success

November 2021

© Association for Consultancy and Engineering, 2021.

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

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

5

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

4

Organise delivery around

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.

3

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

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 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

Dr Nicholas Falk is Executive Director of The URBED Trust

The Levelling Up White Paper: bridging the gaps

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 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

Levelling Up the United Kingdom

First published in the AoU Journal Here and Now. www.theaou.org 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 to explain the ‘narratives’ of collaboration, and how some city regions managed to switch direction while many others did not. Because the section on international lessons is so brief, there is 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: 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.

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.

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 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 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

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

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

© Frances Holliss

Dr Holliss is Emeritus Reader in Architecture at London Met University 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 than125 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 collections 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

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 strategy 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

BELOW (7): Co-housing diagrams

3B 5P 2B 4P 2B 4P

UK Space Standards Add rooms if needed

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

Connect a switch room to a neighbour

CO-HOUSING SCENARIOS

Shared afterschool childcare: doors open 3:30-6pm on weekdays Reconfigure as through plan

Live/Work 1-bed apartments with co-working space Remove walls if not needed

Open plan with curtains

4 bedroom flat share

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, 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. >>>

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 >>>

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 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

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

A compelling read!

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

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

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

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 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.

Federica Buricco explains what will play out for Planning and Urban Design in 2022 Planning and urban design: with behavioural change comes urban shift

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. 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 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.

>>> 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.

Global architecture practice, CallisonRTKL (CRTKL) defines the new behavioural changes shaping the built environment in London

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.

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 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 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 >>>

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) 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

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 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.

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 Relax – this article is about on shore wind turbines rather than nuclear fallout.

But there is somewhat of a “dig for victory” feel to our current conversations about energy. If we all just turn down our thermostats by one degree and so on.

Against the urgent need for greater energy security, against the escalating costs of energy and fuel (which make “levelling up” a side show) and of course against the largest and most relentless horseman of the apocalypse, climate change – there is one central question: How can we reduce our energy requirements and maximise the potential of our “home grown” sources of energy?

Following this 8 March Government press statement UK to phase out Russian oil imports (phasing out to be by the end of this year) SEE https://tinyurl.com/2782k2h5, we await a statement from the prime minister next week on the future of UK energy supply. He was quoted last week as follows:

“We need to intensify our self reliance as a transition with more hydrocarbons, but what we also need to do is go for more nuclear and much more use of renewable energy,” he said. “I’m going to be setting out an energy strategy and energy supply strategy for the country in the days ahead.”

This is not going to be uncontroversial, both by reference to “more hydrocarbons” (see eg Johnson hints UK oil and gas output must rise to cut dependence on Russia (The Guardian, 7 March 2022 SEE: https://tinyurl.com/2p8nptfu)) but also unfortunately in relation to renewables, the further encouragement of which should surely be a no-brainer.

We had a wide-ranging clubhouse discussion back on 8 February 2022, Renewable energy and using less energy: are you plugged in? which is worth listening back to HERE: https://tinyurl.com/3np9d4fc (it includes discussion of energy reduction and of what is happening in relation to off shore wind energy which this blog post will not), and there is also my 23 October 2021 blog post Net Zero Strategy: We Can Have Cake & Eat It, HERE: https://tinyurl.com/25p6v4fh but all that seems a long time ago set against recent events. Warning: this blog post only considers England’s, particularly troubled, policy position, rather than the rest of the United Kingdom.

The July 2021 update to the NPPF did not contain any specific changes in relation to planning for climate change. Paragraph 152 (previously paragraph 148) still reads:

“The planning system should support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change. It should help to: shape places in ways

that contribute to radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimise vulnerability and improve resilience; encourage the reuse of existing resources, including the conversion of existing buildings; and support renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure.” When the update was published the Government’s response to consultation stated that 20 per cent of respondents to that draft section of the framework “recognised the importance of climate change and indicated a need for stronger terminology to reflect this, such as specific references to the net zero target and emphasis on renewable energy” and stated that the Government is “committed to meeting its climate change objectives and recognises the concerns expressed across groups that this chapter should explicitly reference the Net Zero emissions target. It is our intention to do a fuller review of the Framework to ensure it contributes to climate change mitigation/adaptation as fully as possible, as set out in the [planning white paper].” So we expect changes to the NPPF to strengthen planning policies on climate change. Can we expect any change of policy in relation to on-shore wind in particular? If you recall, following its 2015 election manifesto pledge, the Government significantly toughened its stance in relation to on shore wind. Greg Clark issued this written ministerial statement on 18 June 2015 SEE: There is one central question: how https://tinyurl.com/mr3bh98u: “I am today setting out new can we reduce our energy considerations to be applied to requirements and maximise the proposed wind energy development so that local people havepotential of our “home grown” the final say on wind farm applisources of energy? cations, fulfilling the commitment made in the Conservative election manifesto. Subject to the transitional provision set out below, these considerations will take effect from 18 June and should be taken into account in planning decisions. I am also making a limited number of consequential changes to planning guidance. When determining planning applications for wind energy development involving one or more wind turbines, local planning authorities should only grant planning permission if: · the development site is in an area identified as suitable for wind energy development in a Local or Neighbourhood Plan; and · following consultation, it can be demonstrated that the planning impacts identified by affected local communities have been fully addressed and therefore the proposal has their backing. In applying these new considerations, suitable areas for wind energy development will need to have been allocated clearly in a Local or Neighbourhood Plan. Maps showing the wind resource as 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 (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/

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

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 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

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 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-

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 nervous 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

IMAGES of industrial development in London

FAR LEFT: Barking & Dagenham

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

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 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.

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.

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 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

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.

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 when both domestic and EU spatial policy was in operation, was equivalent to 0.27 per cent per annum of UK GNI (2020 prices). This is dwarfed by mainstream spending programmes (by comparison, the UK committed £14.5 billion (0.7 per cent of GNI) to international aid in 2019). The UK approach can also be compared to the German Aufbau Ost programme to level up economic opportunities and prosperity in East German regions to those in West Germany following unification: since 1990 Germany had expended some €2trillion on this programme, roughly equivalent to £55billion per annum. The level of resources devoted to spatial policy in the UK has thus been woefully inadequate given the entrenched and cumulative nature of the problem.

Having identified a number of significant limitations and weaknesses of past policy, the book goes on to argue that nothing short of a major transformative spatial policy model will be necessary to reduce geographical economic inequalities. A number of key foundational principles are set out for what is argued should be a mission-orientated strategy, including: the embedding of geography in national policy making and economic governance; the commitment of resources on a scale appropriate to the magnitude of the task; a move towards a federated system of cityregion authorities with substantial devolved powers and funding; and a corresponding strengthening of a bottom-up, place-based dimension to policy design and implementation. Although the book is focused on the UK, there are lessons from the policy discussion that will be of relevance for other countries in which governments face a similar challenge of levelling up those of their towns, cities and regions that have been left behind. The book recommends that the UK Government should: • Grasp the transformative moment for local, regional and urban development policy as the United Kingdom adjusts to a Post-Covid world and seeks a Net Zero Carbon future; • Establish a clear and binding national mission for ‘levelling up’; • Realise the potential of place in policy making; • Decentralise and devolve

The scale of the problem being towards a multi-level federal addressed and how it has increased polity; through time have been poorly • Strengthen sub-national funding and financing and adopt new understood by government. financing. n

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

London Borough of Bexley Civic Offices Broadway Bexleyheath DA6 7LB

020 8303 7777

www.bexley.gov.uk/planning 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

Aktar Choudhury Operational Director of Regeneration aktar.choudhury@brent.gov.uk 020 8937 1764

Rob Krzysznowski Spatial Planning Manager rob.krzysznowski@brent.gov.uk 020 8937 2704

David Glover Development Management Manager david.glover@brent.gov.uk 020 8937 5344 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

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

City of London Department for the Built Environment PO Box 270 Guildhall London EC2P 2EJ 020 7332 1710 www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/planning

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

Director of the Built Environment Ms Carolyn Dwyer carolyn.dwyer@cityoflondon.gov.uk 020 7332 1600 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

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

Director of Regeneration and Planning David Moore moored@ealing.gov.uk

Executive Director of Environment Keith Townsend townsendk@ealing.gov.uk 020 8825 5000

Director of Safer Communities and Housing Mark Whitmore whitmorem@ealing.gov.uk 020 8825 5000 >>>

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

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 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

Royal Borough of Greenwich The Woolwich Centre 35 Wellington Street London SE18 6HQ

020 8921 6426 www.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/planning

Acting Chief Executive Ms Debbie Warren debbie.warren@royalgreenwich.gov.uk 020 8921 5000

Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Skills Pippa Hack pippa.hack@greenwich.gov.uk 020 8921 5519

Assistant Director of Planning Victoria Geoghegan victoria.geoghegan@greewich.gov.uk 020 8921 5363

Assistant Director of Transportation Graham Nash graham.nash@greenwich.gov.uk London Borough of Hackney

Environment and Planning Hackney Service Centre 1 Hillman Street E8 1DY

020 8356 8062 Chief Executive Tim Shields tim.shields@hackney.gov.uk 020 8356 3201

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

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

Chief Executive Ms Kim Dero kim.dero@lbhf.gov.uk 020 8753 3000

Head of Planning Regeneration John Finlayson john.finlayson@lbhf.gov.uk 020 8753 6740

Head of Policy & Spatial Planning Pat Cox pat.cox@lbhf.gov.uk 020 8753 5773

Head of Development Management Ellen Whitchurch ellen.whitchurch@lbhf.gov.uk 020 8753 3484

London Borough Of Haringey Level 6 River Park House 225 High Road Wood Green London N22 8HQ

020 8489 1400 www.haringey.gov.uk

Director for Housing, Regeneration & Planning Dan Hawthorn dan.hawthorn@haringey.gov.uk

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

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

Chief Executive Tom Whiting tom.whiting@harrow.gov.uk 020 8420 9495

Divisional Director of Planning Paul Nichols paul.nichols@harrow.gov.uk 020 8736 6149

The London Borough of Havering Town Hall Main Road Romford RM1 3BD

01708 433100 www.havering.gov.uk

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

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 Head of Planning & Enforcement James Rodger james.rodger@hillingdon.gov.uk 01895 250230

Head of Major Initiatives, Strategic Planning & Transportation Jales Tippell jales.tippell@hillingdon.gov.uk 01895 250230

London Borough Of Hounslow Civic Centre Lampton Road Hounslow TW3 4DN

020 8583 5555 www.hounslow.gov.uk/planning

Chief Executive Niall Bolger niall.bolger@hounslow.gov.uk 020 8770 5203

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

Team Leader for Planning & Projects Eshwyn Prabhu eshwin.prabhu@islington.gov.uk 020 7527 2450

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

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea The Town Hall Hornton Street London W8 7NX

020 7361 3000 planning@rbck.gov.uk

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

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 Chief Executive Ms Janet Senior janet.senior@lewisham.gov.uk 020 8314 8013

Development Manager Geoff Whittington geoff.whittington@lewisham.gov.uk

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

Director of Environment and Regeneration Chris Lee chris.lee@merton.gov.uk 020 8545 3051

Director of Community and Housing Hannah Doody hannah.doody@merton.gov.uk 020 8545 3680

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

Director of Commissioning (Communities, Environment & Housing) Simon Litchford QPM simon.litchford@newham.gov.uk

London Borough of Redbridge 128-142 High Road Ilford London IG1 1DD

020 8554 5000 www.redbridge.gov.uk/planning

Chief Executive & Head of Paid Service Andy Donald andy.donald@redbridge.gov.uk

Interim Head of Planning & Building Control Ciara Whelehan ciara.whelehan@redbridge.gov.uk

Head of Inward Investment & Enterprise Mark Lucas mark.lucas@redbridge.gov.uk 020 8708 2143 London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames Civic Centre 44 York Street Twickenham TW1 3BZ

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

Chief Executive Paul Martin paul.martin@richmondandwandsworth.gov.uk 020 8871 6001

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

The London Borough of Southwark 160 Tooley Street London SE1 2QH

020 7525 3559

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

The London Borough of Sutton 24 Denmark Road Carshalton SurreySM5 2JG

020 8770 5000 www.sutton.gov.uk/planning

Chief Executive Helen Bailey helen.bailey@sutton.gov.uk

Assistant Director, Resources Directorate (Asset Planning, Management & Capital Delivery) Ade Adebayo ade.adebayo@sutton.gov.uk 020 8770 6349

Strategic Director of Environment, Housing & Regeneration Mary Morrisey mary.morrissey@sutton.gov.uk 020 8770 6101 Executive Head of Economic Development, Planning & Sustainability Eleanor Purser eleanor.purser@sutton.gov.uk

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

020 8364 5009

Chief Executive Will Tuckley will.tuckley@towerhamlets.gov.uk

Divisional Director Planning & Building Control owen.whalley@towerhamlets.gov.uk 020 7364 5314

Strategic Planning Manager Adele Maher adele.maher@towerhamlets.gov.uk 020 7364 5375

The London Borough Of Waltham Forest Town Hall London E17 4JF

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

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 >>>

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 Chief Executive Stuart Love slove@westminster.gov.uk 020 7641 3091

Director of Planning 020 7641 2519

Head of City Policy and Strategy Barry Smith bsmith@westminster.gov.uk 020 7641 3052

OTHER ORGANISATIONS

Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk London SE1 2AA

020 7983 4000 www.london.gov.uk

Sadiq Khan Mayor of London mayor@london.gov.uk 020 7983 4000

Greater London Authority Executive Director, Good Growth Philip Graham 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 Urban Design London Palestra 197 Blackfriars Road London SE1 8AA 020 7593 9000 www.urbandesignlondon.com

Planning Officers Society The Croft, 81 Walton Road, Aylesbury HP21 7SN tel: 01296 422161

Design For London City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA info@designforlondon.gov.uk Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government

020 7944 4400

Please notify any changes immediately by e-mail to planninginlondon@mac.com with the subject ‘planning in london directory’.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPONSOR THIS DIRECTORY? Previous sponsors were Colliers and Knight Frank. If maybe then please email editor@planninginlondon.com

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

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

I would like to subscribe from: last issue 120 January 2022 this issue 121 April 2022 next issue 122 July 2022 Go to planninginlondon.com > Subscribe and pay online with

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

Card number:

MASTERCARD

Expiry date:

Signature: Name on card:

Firm:

Card billing address: security no:

Tel:

Up to 5 Email addresses:

Delivery address if different:

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