Andrew Rogers on a constipated planning system page 47; Planning authority skills, Catriona Riddell page 12; Housing Targets for London: another mutant algorithm? page 35; Small housebuilders, Paul Rickard page 15; Historical ingredients for creating successful new towns, Samuel Hughes page 65; Stagnation or growth? The stark planning choice facing Central London, ARUP page 61
21 Commercial to Residential PD | Matthew Robinson
23 Compulsory Purchase | Lawrence Turner
26 BRIEFING
CLIPBOARD: Restoring the planning system; Ripping out the blockages; Fixing planning; Work together in devolution deserts, says Rayner; Housing target too high; The Park Lane ‘boulevard’; John Lewis wins its first housing approval; Ramming the changes through; Free resources to create local design codes; Upwards PD applications; Anyone for Tennis?; A Great British rebrand?
30 PLANNING PERFORMANCE
Downward trends in planning applications and decisions continue
34 LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM
Housing Targets for London; Relaxing the rules on upward extensions; NPPF and Development Management reforms
35 Housing Targets for London: Another mutant algorithm?
36 Charting the potential for rooftop housing in London
42 NPPF and Development Management reforms - response to consultation
44 ACA’s manifesto for mending planning
Continues next page
LEE MALLET: Inspiration
47 ANDREW ROGERS on Planning’s need for a laxative
49 ¡PILLO!
Peter’s passion for architecture; The mystery of affordability appraisals; Eye Eye; £14bn down the holes; ALDI happy to invest in planning
FEATURES
50 Ground source heat pump network | Edward Williams
54 Just Build Homes | Millie Dodd
56 Building homes for Senior living | Lars Christian
58 Rethinking the Green Belt | David Churchill
61 Stagnation or growth? The stark planning choice facing Central London | ARUP
65 Historical ingredients for creating successful new towns | Samuel Hughes
BOOKS
69 Blueprints for the Soul | Nick Ross & Barbara Iddon
70 Londoners Making London by Jan Kattein
71 Modern Buildings in Blackheath and Greenwich | reviewed by Nicholas de Klerk
73 Chalk Farm Railway Lands | Peter Darley
74 Stationary winding engine house on Camden incline
– From the Archive
78 Camden Goods Station through time
– From the Archive
81 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REFERENCE GUIDE
84 SUBSCRIPTION ORDER FORM
85 SHAPING THE WORLD Town centres | Catherine Pollard
The LP&DF was formed in 1980 following an all-party inquiry into the development control system. It selects topics to debate at its quarterly meetings and these views are reported to constituent bodies and published in Planning in London.
It is a sounding board for the development of planning policy in the capital, used by both the public and private sectors.
Agendas and minutes are at www.planninginlondon.com
To attend please email the Hon. Secretary
Publishing Editors: Brian Waters, Paul Finch and Lee Mallett editor@planninginlondon.com, planninginlondon@mac.com
Editorial, subscriptions and advertising: Tel: 07957871477
The LPDF is administered by: Brian.Whiteley@planningaid.rtpi.org.uk & Riette Oosthuizen riette.oosthuizen@hta.co.uk & James Mitchell : jm@axiomarchitects.co.uk
Chairman: Brian Waters MA DipArch (Cantab) DipTP RIBA MRTPI ACArch ppACA FRSA Principal: The Boisot Waters Cohen Partnership brianwaters1@mac.com
Vice-Chairmen: Riette Oosthuizen HTA Design: riette.oosthuizen@hta.co.uk and Brian Whiteley Brian.Whiteley@planningaid.rtpi.org.uk
Member bodies Association of Consultant Architects Planning Officers’ Society/Association of London Borough Planning Officers
Stagnation or growth? page 61
Blueprints for the Soul Nick Ross & Barbara Iddon page 69
Available only on subscription: £99 pa
Provides a licence for five copies by email See subscription form or buy online at www.planninginlondon.com.
Planning in London is published quarterly in association with The London Planning & Development Forum by Land Research Unit Ltd, Studio Petersham, Gorshott, 181 Petersham Road TW10 7AW
London Councils British Property Federation Design Council CABE City of London Law Society Confederation for British Industry DLUHC Design for London/ Urban Design London Historic England Environment Agency Greater London Authority Home Builders Federation Landscape Architecture SE London Chambers of Commerce & Industry London Forum of Amenity Societies London Housing Federation National Planning Forum ICE, RIBA, RICS, RTPI, UDAL, TCPA
Contributors write in a personal capacity. Their views are not necessarily those of The London Development & Planning Forum or of their organisations.
Correspondence and contributions are invited for consideration. The editors reserve the right to edit material and letters supplied.
Made on a Mac
Transport for London
London University (The Bartlett, UCL) University of Westminster Affiliated members: Planning Aid for London
London Metropolitan University
THE LP&DF IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE LONDON SOCIETY
With Labour in Westminster and in charge of the GLA, growth could be accelerated to help younger generations find a future in the capital
Planning in London has been published and edited by Brian Waters, Lee Mallett and Paul Finch since 1992
Let’s see more synergy in London
A Labour government, a Labour Mayor of London. At last, signs of synergy between national and capital governance. The Mayor has declared his ambition for a Mayoral Development Corporation for Oxford Street (and possibly Soho if some people get their way, but this feels unlikely). After decades of dither and decline, could this be the end of the beginning for the capital’s street of shame?
Then Deputy Prime Minister Rayner writes to Sadiq Khan scrapping Michael Gove’s earlier directive to him to review the London Plan’s policy on housing delivery on industrial sites and Opportunity Area Policies, in favour of a ‘partnership approach’ between the Labour government and the Mayor on London’s housing policy. Could be a good thing if some real synergy materialises. While London’s industrial sites are a precious and shrinking commodity, especially in inner boroughs, plenty of them could accommodate other uses and greater densities.
Meanwhile rays of sunlight peak through the post-2008, Brexit, Covid, Trussonomics clouds as the Bank of England gets frisky about cutting interest rates. These are all planning matters. How to drive the necessary transformations that will deliver what London needs and avoid decline.
There are only two MDCs in the capital now. The London Legacy Development Corporation, where planning powers have already returned, after 18 years of the ODA and its successor the LLDC, to Newham, and the Old Oak and Park Royal MDC launched in 2015, now building stuff. There are no less than 47 Opportunity Areas, many of them with trans-borough boundaries. And there are other crucial places or pieces of urban infrastructure which urgently require greater collaborative thinking which boroughs are not usually good at.
Take the route from King’s Cross south down King’s Cross Road, on to Farringdon Road past the new epicentre Farringdon station and Smithfield, over Blackfriars Bridge and down to the Elephant & Castle. This is one of London’s major north south thoroughfares. It might not require a development corporation, but it does need more joined up thinking.
Or take the much larger piece of the Royal Docks and the Beckton Riverside. Here there has been joined up thinking with plans prepared by the GLA, TfL, LB Newham, the GLA Royal Docks Team and a planning framework created with major elements emerging into place. But the regeneration of the area has taken too long when London has needed so much new development, especially housing. The economic and social cost of waiting 40 years or more for this slice of it to be fully brought back to life is huge. We need to find more effective ways of delivering faster more certain, perhaps more pragmatic regeneration, now that we’ve had 40 years of practice.
With Labour in Westminster and in charge of the GLA, growth could be accelerated to help younger generations find a future in the capital and help pay for whatever will succeed national ‘levelling up’. Whatever it takes. Development corporations or partnership working, or just better visioning and planning, London is the key to creating growth and driving votes for whichever party wants them. n
A good strategy for the new government would be to avoid focusing on failure, instead analysing examples of success at scale, past and recent
Now the Party begins . . .
Labour’s inevitable election triumph creates an opportunity to address today’s most important social issue– the acute shortage of housing, especially for younger people. Will policies announced pre- and post-election achieve the desired result – an additional 1.5 million homes over five years?
The idea that ‘bulldozing’ the planning system will produce that result suggests a wilful disregard for the consequences of smashing things up, and a failure to understand what is involved in delivering (as opposed to talking about it) housing at scale.
Successive administrations have fiddled with planning with the contradictory aims of more consultation and greater speed. This has not improved delivery. Labour’s love affair with Create Streets, which pretends if beauty were the guiding principle behind development, then permissions would flow, was always nonsense. In a sensible move, Angela Rayner has proposed removal of ‘beauty’ and ‘beautiful’ from the NPPF.
Another fantasy policy is that creating ‘new towns’ is a panacea for shortage. Remember Labour’s eco-towns?
New settlements by all means, but new towns take 20 years to create, during which time it makes little sense to build homes surrounded by infrastructure work. Michael Gove suggested creating multiple development corporations, to move more quickly. But this conversion to public sector-led initiatives was a tissue-thin response to Conservative nimbies, who halted their party’s support of other ‘socialist’ measures like housing targets. Labour have resurrected these. Good, but targets are not the same as buildings.
Things can only get better, to coin a phrase. The decision to review Green Belt land is sensible, but threats of compulsory purchase below market rates spells trouble. Surely Labour remembers its Community Land Act?
Support for of local authorities directly procuring homes will continue (it started politically with the Kate Barker housing review commissioned by Gordon Brown. She has produced a follow-up report noting few of her recommendations have been adopted). You might expect Labour to give council housing a big push, but how will it will be funded? These days, governments seem to need a proxy to help or persuade others to build, rather than a body (Homes England) getting directly involved in procurement and project management. We know how to do this – look at Stratford’s Olympic Village.
There other low-cost policies the new government might consider. A quick win would be to bring back penal surcharges and electoral disqualification for councillors who block permissions by unreasonable rejection of officers’ advice. Ditto the lack of moral or financial hazard in individuals blocking significant development via judicial review.
Or what about a programme you might call ‘homes without construction’? There are vast numbers of empty properties, including potential dwellings above shops. Sticks and carrots might encourage their re-use. Revaluation for council tax, heavily upwards, would encourage owners of unusedbedroom properties to let them out or down-size.
Letting properties is, however, unlikely to continue, especially since the Conservatives’ recent attack on landlords was criticised by Labour for not going far enough. Pragmatism about bringing property into use should outweigh Labour’s dislike of property owners – excepting rentier Labour MPs.
Labour wants to be the party that supports housebuilders. It will not be if it smashes up planning. It should refine or eliminate policies that block or delay. The more you use complex design codes, phoney net-zero measures, outlandish cycle requirements, biodiversity net gain, planning gain negotiations etc, the more you squeeze out smaller builders. The big players go their own way and if you rely on them to build your social programme, you are depending on the wrong people.
A good strategy for the new government would be to avoid focusing on failure, instead analysing examples of success at scale, past and recent. Post-1945 housing production peaked in private and public sectors in 1968. I seem to remember we had a Labour government. n
Ideas to make planning a happier place and encourage development
Socius has partnered with Aviva Capital Partners and landowner, London Borough of Sutton to deliver a sustainable district for excellence in cancer research. Working closely with The Institute of Cancer Research, London, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, and Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust, the London Cancer Hub (LCH) will consist of a one million sq.ft. life sciences district on a five-hectare site
Developer Barry Jessup, has some suggestions for planning reform and encouraging development
Nothing is more tedious than a developer whingeing about Planning. But it must be said where the housing problem is most acute, in London, the city has been one of the toughest places for developers. In fact it resulted in us shifting our focus to other cities in the South East for a while.
However, we have renewed our focus on London as the market recovers from the shock of Liz Truss’ mini-budget and we hopefully enjoy a more stable political environment. We are bidding on a couple of major mixed-use opportunities, and we are working up plans for the London Cancer Hub in Sutton, with
Aviva and landowner LB Sutton (see above).
Whilst worthy on their own merits, London’s combination of local Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), Mayoral CIL, Section 106 planning gain and 278 (highways) contributions make a heavy tax bill.
On a west London site we bid for recently, we calculated CIL was higher than the land price proposed! That will discourage release of sites.
Then there are three levels of planning risk and associated costs in navigating London’s process –national, GLA and borough hurdles, with no guarantee of success and much political uncertainty. Add in increased national taxation including Stamp Duty,
Barry Jessup is Managing Director at Socius
removal of tax relief on buy-to-let interest, inability to recover VAT, not to mention the cost of Planning Performance Agreements (that may not deliver promised service levels) and contested viability studies, and you have a difficult environment.
Whinge, whinge, whinge! But nobody should be surprised at the lower levels of housing delivery. This broader context comes with a self-defeating consequence - the gradual exclusion of homes from schemes and conversions of commercial buildings because other uses are more valuable. The residential element of mixed-use proposals often makes no money.
ABOVE:
So what is the answer?
We are supportive of permitted development rights to enable a change of use, to restore economic and social activity and to remove vacant office buildings from the market. But there have been poor-quality outcomes and we would restrict conversion proposals to build-to-rent, with a condition schemes must be managed for a minimum of 10-15 years by a high quality professional landlord to ensure continued investment in the product.
The requirement to provide 50% affordable housing is the biggest tax. Like everyone, we want to see more affordable housing, and the obvious solution is government grant to make its delivery more viable. But we recognise the coffers are empty. An alternative idea is to switch SDLT liability from the purchaser to the vendor. This would reduce the cash requirement for the purchaser and stimulate the market.
There are other ways of accelerating development that should not cost the Government net cash. Where is the incentive for boroughs to approve commercial development when the bulk of business rates goes to central government? Why not have a timelimited arrangement whereby the bulk of business rates from locally approved new schemes goes to local government to meet local needs?
This would leave a ‘sweetener’ for the Treasury but provide a clear incentive to councils to say ‘yes’ to new development. It would encourage new money into development – of which there is no shortage if property’s competitiveness can be improved.
When it comes to mixed use and residential development, yes, CIL is way too high, but that’s also a facile argument. It is more persuasive to argue developers should not pay CIL ‘up-front’ at the moment of maximum risk, and to intensify that risk by carrying the cost during construction when no income is received. Current arrangements do not make business sense.
Ideally CIL could be deferred until a building is occupied or sold, and when intensification costs to the community commence. Cash flow benefits would be substantial, leaving more in the pot for gain. The same is true of the timing for payment of S106. Don’t frontload risk in development. It reduces the pot.
We would also like to see detailed accountability around how CIL and S106 payments will be spent, with stronger ring-fencing and identification of local projects. In an era of Nimbyism, not being able to demonstrate local benefits is an unnecessary shot in the foot
Then there is under-resourcing. This problem extends beyond the well-documented issue with planning departments to other organisations such as Historic England, the Environment Agency, etc. Even when officers are fulfilling their side of a Planning Performance Agreement, it is too easy for the timetable to go awry because another consultee agency is pursuing their own timetable. Much buckpassing occurs. Most major developers are happy to pay for PPAs, in fact to pay more, but they are insufficiently reliable.
BELOW:
Edward Street Quarter, Brighton by Socius Developments, architect BGY
Demotivated and underpaid planning staff is a major problem for developers, and private planning consultants take advantage by offering better rewards. It is also clear many planning department employees are working from home – like other industries. How is this affecting performance?
Incentivise local government to accelerate planning and development by better resourcing, and retaining local business rates locally for a defined period with income reverting to the Treasury later so the focus is on incentivising new development. Defer CIL and S106/278 payments until income streams flow and reduce risk while encouraging development. Don’t discourage residential by over-taxation. All ideas that would make planning a happier place and encourage more development. n
Grenfell blame game needs new rules
Just about anything which could go wrong did go wrong in respect of the Grenfell Tower fire. But subsequent revelations make it clear that, while the tragedy took place as a result of very specific circumstances, it highlighted a deep-seated construction industry malaise which has affected thousands of buildings and tens of thousands of occupants.
The report of the public inquiry into Grenfell, and its recommendations about the future, have therefore to be seen in conjunction with the daily disaster affecting the lives of those metaphorically trapped in dangerous and often unsaleable apartments.
In respect of the latter, Michael Gove has been lamenting the slowness with which his policy to get repairs done at the expense of house-builders/contractors has taken place, and as usual the new Labour government is blaming everything on its Conservative predecessor. In fact Gove acted quite quickly, though his threats to block planning permissions for anyone he thought was dragging their feet was legally dubious. In any event his initiatives have yet to work across the board.
This is partly because issues of legal liability do not simply vanish at the stroke of a politician’s pen. Shortages of qualified professionals who can assess and approve what insurers and freehelders how want done is a big problem. On liability, one party may be told to carry out necessary repairs of sub-standard buildings, which never complied with Building Regulations in the first place. It does not prevent them from suing other parties who may have been complicit or associated with the sub-standard delivery of those homes.
As the Grenfell report makes clear, there were multiple failures by almost every party involved, which is why media headlines in the wake of publication have switched attention from one group to another. One day it is the architects who got it all wrong, but the next it is about incompetent designand-build contracting. Or the failures of the local authority inspection regime – but perhaps most tellingly the role of the insulation and cladding manufacturers in deliberately misleading designers and clients about the appropriateness of their products. In this respect, Celotex, Arconic and Kingspan
have an awful lot to answer for. Their behaviour, as outlined by the inquiry report, took place in the context of testing regimes which themselves are the subject of criticism, since they could not cope with deliberately dishonest gaming of the tests themselves. (It is a pity that the inquiry was unable to review the proposals made by former Davis Langdon chief Paul Morrell, also a former government construction ‘czar’, who produced a report at the government’s request on the future of testing and certification. Since its implication involved the failure of Whitehall and ministers, it is perhaps not surprising that it was published a year late and with zero fanfare – no big press release or conference. However, it is a first-rate document and should be read in conjunction with the Grenfell report itself.)
Underlying all this was what was described at the inquiry as a ‘merry-go-round of buck-passing’ – that is to say risk transfer. The reason it has been so difficult to identify who was responsible for what, and why it will take ages to bring criminal prosecutions, is because design-and-build as a procurement process is fundamentally flawed. In reality, d and b companies do not take responsibility for design, whether it is by qualified architects or unqualified sub-contractors, to whom Mr DandB has given the actual task of producing detailed and/or fabrication drawings.
The architects at Grenfell, who most certainly made mistakes and have paid a huge personal and professional price, were responsible on paper for just about anything – except in reality they weren’t. Their original design proposed zinc cladding and no cavity, by the way. They were in the classic situation of having responsibility without authority, having been
There were multiple failures by almost every party involved... one day it is the architects who got it all wrong, but the next it is about incompetent design-and-build contracting. Or the failures of the local authority inspection regime –but perhaps most tellingly the role of the insulation and cladding manufacturers...
FINCH
Paul Finch is programme director of the World Festival of Architecture and joint publishing editor of Planning in London
novated to the d and b contractor, by which time the latter had started procuring detailed drawings from sub-contractors.
Ask the sub-contractors if they were responsible and you get ‘not me, guv’, as with the insulation and cladding manufacturers.
Construction lawyers, although never discussed at the inquiry, surely have a lot to answer for in respect of the culture of ducking responsibility, which they have encouraged by ‘serving the interests of their clients’. Those interests may turn out to involve dishonesty, evasion, bypassing rules and codes and sometimes forcing responsibility onto others in a disgraceful fashion.
An example of this is where architects appointed to a job are told that, if they wish to undertake it, not only must they take on liability for their own work, but also for that of other professional team members with whom the architect has no contractual relationship. The architect is forced to be insured (unlike contractors) so why not load everything onto them? If they refuse, they may lose the job. This is legal extortion.
Everybody involved in the creation of buildings should be liable for their own actions – and they should have the authority to ensure that what they are responsible for happens. A good mantra, not just for architects but for all those involved in design and delivery, would be ‘No responsibility without authority’. That principle has begun to be recognized under the recently introduced Building Safety Act. The ‘Principal Designer’ cannot sub-contract their responsibilities to anybody else. Ditto the ‘Principal Accountable Person’, ie the client.
Another good slogan would be: ‘No hiding place’. First published in Property Week, with kind consent. n
Inspiration needed for new settlements
Where to put 1.5m new homes? Labour’s national target for new homes and pledges to reform planning to deliver them beg so many questions. We need some examples of how and where that might be achieved and what it might look like. The job requires generating enthusiasm for new, appealing development. And the idea of living in, or approving, ‘Grey Belt’ homes is not a good place to start.
Angela Rayner singled out Northstowe in Cambridgeshire as a place where 10,000 homes for 26,000 people might be built as the UK’s first ‘new town’ since Milton Keynes commenced 60 years ago. But let’s hope they don’t all turn out like the chocolate box historicist streets and buildings envisaged by Create Streets the minister chose to illustrate her enthusiasm for new towns, although there is obviously a place in the public’s heart for places like Poundbury. And they would undoubtedly sell.
In terms of how developers might get more enthusiastic, developer Barry Jessup of Socius (p7) suggests some useful tweaks to planning that avoid the usual pleas for more much needed grant, while making the point that development, especially in London is overtaxed by planning and unlikely to encourage release of site or new development. It makes no sense to pay CiL up front which only reduces the pot available and why deprive local authorities of business rates from new development,
which actively discourages new development. And it obviously makes no sense to set affordable housing requirements at a level that decimates viability.
A problem for planners in London is trying to operate a planning system that is dependent on flawed methods of assessing potential supply. This is a bee in former civil servant/planner Michael Bach’s bonnet, as he reported to the London Planning and Development Forum (p34). Notably the draft NPPF’s new Standard Method has set a target of c.81,000 new homes pa in London with boroughs required to assess their individual need figures.
Assumptions about replacement of existing stock seem to be set too high for areas stuffed with historic stock, with much increased targets for central and inner boroughs are where opportunities are limited, while many outer boroughs’ targets have been reduced. Also smaller sites, below 0.25ha are excluded, which ignores what was a happy hunting ground for London’s near-extinct smaller developers, whose have been whittled down by planning sclerosis. London has much greater potential than targets suggest, not least on ageing Council estates.
It remains popular in urban design and architectural circles to look to northern Europe for inspiration. Sweden is high on the list of go-to places. It has a long tradition of Housing Expo’s, dating back to the early 20th century, when it had some of the worst housing conditions in Europe, and was
Lee Mallett is a founder editor/publisher of PiL and urban regeneration consultant/writer
inspired by the Stockholm Exhibition of 1930 and its embrace of Modernism. Finnish architect Alvar Alto wrote: "The exhibition speaks out for joyful and spontaneous everyday life. And consistently propagates a healthy and unpretentious lifestyle based on economic realities."
We need some inspiration if we are to avoid stale, nostalgic solutions. Hammarby Sjöstadt and Royal Seaport in Stockholm offer popular lessons, as does Malmö’s Bo01, a housing exhibition in 2001, created under the city’s guidance. More recently, in the last 12 years the southern Swedish aero-tech and university town of Linköping has created Vallastaden, involving White Arkitekter, who have an office in London (and had an English emigré cofounder, Sidney White) and have just completed a new mid-rise block on the Gascoigne Estate in Barking.
What is interesting about Vallastaden is the method of procurement used to create the settlement and the lessons it offers in procuring exciting new homes and places here. Linköping’s municipality set up a company to plan and development a 20 acre site between the city its out-of-town university campus. It created a masterplan that divided the land into 100 plots to encourage smaller, more creative developers. It built the public realm. It made 40 selected developers compete not on price, which was fixed, but on quality. Points were awarded based on 19 criteria. You won points for using timber and innovative building methods, for including art, ecological kit, for returning power to the grid, research projects that pursued social outcomes, and for design.
The masterplan set the maximum number of storeys, but developers could vary the storey heights to get the best results, resulting in a varied roofline and they could build in whatever styles, colours and
materials desired. All 40 developers competing had to contribute to a shared ‘parking house’ to deal with that contentious issue, removing parked cars from the streets, designed for pedestrians and cyclists to dominate. 1500 homes are envisaged with more than 1,000 completed.
Even if you prefer Poundbury, or Create Streets’ retro terraces and mansion blocks, Vallastaden offers an inspirational contemporary alternative that might suit many of London’s larger sites. And the idea of the ‘Expo’, where new things are tried and people actually get to buy and live in the result, must be worth another look in London and elsewhere to test ideas. But more importantly, to stir up enthusiasm among an increasingly desperate populous for new homes in new places. at least 81,000 of them a year in London. Otherwise London will be forced into decline as the population ages and young Londoners leave for more affordable places. No, wait a moment, that will at least achieve some of the Levelling Up the last government talked so ineffectually about… n
OPPOSITE: Create
BELOW:
Early aerial CGI of proposals for Vallastaden
ABOVE:
New mixed-used apartment blocks overlooking green space, Vallastaden
LEFT:
Built central space and wooden apartment block, Vallastaden
Streets’ ‘vision’ for new town homes
Three ways to tackle the planning authority skills crisis
The Planning for the Future white paper, which was published in August 2020, had three good proposals in it. The first was to revoke the ineffective duty on councils to cooperate on cross-boundary planning issues, the second was to give much more weight to design codes, and the third was the promise of a comprehensive resources and skills strategy for the planning sector. The first two were taken forward, but the skills strategy never saw the light of day.
There have been a few initiatives and some funding over the past four years to help build capacity, but nothing that looks at skills and resources comprehensively. The current government has promised 300 new planners, but this does not reflect the crisis the public sector faces – and has been facing over the past decade. It also does not reflect the complexity of the issues around skills, resourcing and morale, recognising that more planners is only part of the solution.
Too many planners are not doing ‘planning’; a job that they have worked hard to gain professional qualifications for. They are dealing with householder applications, chasing responses from (underresourced) statutory consultees or managing consultations, for example. All of these are important roles and contribute to the planning system, and need resourcing, but they are not the jobs that we signed up to when we decided to train as planners.
Part of this is also to do with the overwhelming and increasing asks of the planning system and –consequently – planning professionals.
We have a nature crisis, so the planning system has to solve this through biodiversity net gain and new technical processes, which need a mathematics degree to implement. We have a water quality and resource crisis, so the planning system has to deal with it instead of tackling the real source of the problems. We have an affordable housing crisis, so the rules around section 106 agreements are changed to squeeze more land from developers, which is never used because housing associations and councils do not have the money to build and maintain new stock.
The number of planning conditions on permissions is expanded well beyond actual planning matters because it will help everyone else tick a box for their roles and responsibilities in the process. All this heavy lifting has consequences for the resourcing of professional planners, and the many different experts needed to provide a good planning department and
deliver good planning outcomes for local communities.
The more you ask of the planning system, the more it is also open to challenge. Ask any planning lawyer within a council, or those who are supporting councils, how much their roles have expanded over recent years, and you will get a picture of an overcomplex, increasingly legalistic and expensive system full of duplication and inefficiencies.
More planning resources are desperately needed, and funding for the 300 new planners will be welcomed by all local authorities – if there are 300 planners out there to take up these positions. However, what is needed is something that tackles the issues by looking at capacity and capabilities within the public sector in a more comprehensive way.
The second (way) is to get planners back doing the job they trained for, and that makes it worth staying in the public sector for. We need to strip out all the extras that have been added to the job and put more resources upstream to support spatial planning. This will hopefully be helped by the government’s plans to address some of the problems in the way planning committees work, but will also be helped by streamlining the actual application process pre and post decision-making. Why do we need so much information to support even the simplest application?
There are three things that are likely to have the greatest impact. The first is to establish joint teams across local (and combined) authorities to share skills, knowledge and experience and build capacity for the future, especially around digital skills and strategic planning.
Regardless of funding issues, there is simply not the supply of skilled and experienced people around for every local planning authority to have a dedicated resource. Some local authorities are already doing this with good results, but we need many more, larger multi-disciplinary teams going forward. This will also make planning a much more attractive role, as those new to the profession will have far more opportunity to move around and progress than if
Catriona Riddell is strategic planning specialist for the Planning Officers Society
part of a small team covering a small district.
The second is to get planners back doing the job they trained for, and that makes it worth staying in the public sector for. We need to strip out all the extras that have been added to the job and put more resources upstream to support spatial planning. This will hopefully be helped by the government’s plans to address some of the problems in the way planning committees work, but will also be helped by streamlining the actual application process pre and post decision-making. Why do we need so much information to support even the simplest application?
The third suggestion is much more for the government to implement, which is to re-establish a new national resource to support placemaking. Existing support should be refocused to support training of officers and councillors around the basics of good placemaking. If I am honest, I am not sure what the public body, the Office for Place, does, but the governmental shift away from a focus on beauty probably needs a different approach to support welldesigned places.
The Local Government Association’s Planning Advisory Service has a valuable role to play, which could be enhanced to provide more support on a wider range of core topics instead of spending a disproportionate amount of resources on things like biodiversity net gain. A radical rethink on how the government supports placemaking is urgently needed.
There is no argument that the public sector needs more financial resources and more planners, but this will only have a small impact on the wider issues impacting on morale and outcomes of the planning system. A comprehensive and radical review of the interconnected and complicated issues is needed urgently, so valuable funding and support is deployed in a much more efficient way with much greater impact. n
Catriona was a freelance adviser to the Labour Party in the run-up to the election. This article first appeared in Planning, with kind consent. ALSO see Andy Rogers’ column.
Biodiversity Net Gain: issues affecting success
BNG became mandatory for major developments from 12th February and for small sites from 2nd April. Six months on Mark Topping looks at the triumphs and tribulations
Landscape architecture, ecology and arboriculture have huge synergy and, when the disciplines work in close partnership, project outcomes can be exciting, creative and have huge benefit to the environment. As Lanpro is a multi-disciplinary company in which ecologists and landscape consultants work alongside planners, we have prior experience of an environmental-led approach to development.
BNG has had a significant impact on the development sector. BNG must now be considered at all stages of the planning process, from validation, through to assessment, discharge of conditions and reporting. Furthermore, the requirement to manage onsite BNG for 30 years has a significant impact on the management of schemes. Most view the policy as a net gain in many respects: over time, it will result in considerable enhancements to natural environments and will see greener, healthier developments with high value and high quality habitats.
However, there are outstanding issues to be resolved. For example, the need for developers to provide a like-for-like (or like-for-better) replacement in biodiversity terms is not well understood. An example is where an ‘area’ feature is lost due to development, such as grassland. This often cannot simply be offset by new woodland or hedgerow planting: it must often be a like-for-like replacement. This is also the case when a particular protected species of flora or fauna is lost.
While we are still in the early days of a very significant change in approach, an element of confusion is inevitable. An example of this is that in some cases, developers who understand the process are looking carefully at their application boundaries in relation to the ‘red line’ (the application boundary) and the ‘blue line’ (their landholding which is not part of the development application). In doing so, they can ensure that they are assessing only core areas and are not over-prescribing BNG. They are also considering blue line ownership opportunities and land banks for ‘off-site’ provision of BNG. Many developers are over-providing BNG as a result. Another current issue in proving biodiversity net gain is a lack of registered off-setting sites, although it is hoped that this is a short-term issue. I know of several councils which are developing habitat banks but are currently finalising Habitat Management and Monitoring Plans and S106s. In some LPAs, there
currently are no registered sites for BNG. This leaves the options as onsite, in proximity subject to legal agreement, starting negotiations with landowners, or the Environment Bank.
Furthermore, there tends to be variance in LPA ecologists’ intentions for the planning stage for BNG. Whilst the regulated minimum information is the baseline habitats, many LPA ecologists request at least a draft calculation at the planning application stage which shows 0%+ BNG and therefore complies with NPPF policy 185 part C to secure “measurable net gains for biodiversity”. The desire to see this calculation may not always have been included in the validation requirements.
It will be interesting to see whether, over time, those local authorities which require more than 10% BNG will see a reduction in the number of planning applications coming forward – creating an absence of development and over-supply in neighbouring areas. Currently, only a small number of authorities are asking for more than 10% and, following research which suggested that this number was likely to increase, the government issued Guidance stating that LPAs need to justify this - presumably to prevent it from occurring.
So far I have seen little indication of this. Cambridge City Council requires 20% BNG but the profit in developing land in Cambridge outweighs the additional BNG burden. However, some reduction in development could occur if an onerous BNG requirement forced down the land value, leading to less land coming forward. In view of the new government’s requirement for 50% affordable housing, combined with the high costs of development, nutrient neutrality mitigation and potentially compulsory purchase, this potential drawback is perhaps more real than it was when the Environment Act was put in place under the previous administration.
An opportunity in the provision of BNG lies in the new government’s approach to Local Nature Recovery Strategies (LNRS). Potentially this should improve the effectiveness of BNG by providing guidance where such investment by developers can be most effective when delivered offsite. This should assist with the selection and identification of suitable BNG sites in England’s regions meaning that the significant costs for developers lead to real and positive change.
If, as we anticipated when the new government
Topping is Director of Design at Lanpro
was elected, planning moves to a strategic overall system, then LNRS will become key decision-making tools to determine if planned development will conflict with LNRS. This already occurs in relation to the proximity and type of development in relation to existing sites with national, regional and local designations, such as SSSIs, and Nature Reserves.
LNRS could take this further by assessing how development on land with potential for contributing to Nature Recovery is affected by a development, and possibly the ability of the development to deliver elements of nature recovery itself - particularly the ability of housing to deliver on site BNG in a way that creates BNG alongside social benefits where such benefits don’t conflict with habitat creation intended for sensitive species.
Currently the creation of Sustainable Alternative Natural Green spaces (SANGs), are used to alleviate pressures of development on Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and on Special Protection Areas (SPAs). Such a process in relation to LNRS could be managed within the current requirements of planning conditions and section 106 agreements.
At such an early stage, fears of inadequate scrutiny or decision-making delay are inevitable. Inadequate scrutiny could lead to schemes that don’t add value to nature. Delays to decision-making would cause significant issues for the planning process and may have implications on the construction industry too, subject to the working of conditions or lack of decision-making which may require pre-commencement conditions relating to BNG.
Inevitably there are many practical issues in relation to the provision of BNG, but essentially the principle is welcomed by those striving to create popular and environmentally responsible developments. The sense among the planning and development industry is that when these issues are ironed out, the standard of new development (and the impact on the surrounding area) will improve exponentially. n
Mark
The housing sector stands ready
A large expansion of building social housing could deliver tens of billions of pounds of social value and economic growth, says Geeta Nanda
The new government’s first-100-days plan must put the well-versed arguments that housing aids economic growth, and more homes are needed to resolve the social issues we face, front and centre to achieve the goal of building 1.5 million homes by 2029.
Labour has inherited a housing crisis of every kind. There are 142,000 children in temporary accommodation, thousands sleeping rough, a private rental market failing to deliver security to tenants, a generation feeling shut out of home ownership and older people lacking housing options. There is no single solution to the housing crisis, so mobilising the public and private sectors, and housing associations, is essential. We can’t just wait for new towns to be built and planning graduates to finish degrees; we need an alliance to show what can be done now and into the future.
For housing associations, the government should begin with a long-term rental deal that gives registered providers and investors the confidence to plan how to deliver services and build homes. The regulatory and financial environment has put housing associations under acute pressure. The short-term caps and falls in social rent have caused huge investment uncertainty, particularly as interest rates rose.
We also need to review all funding pots to apply them to best advantage, giving flexibility on use for existing homes to create capacity to build new homes. We need to tear up rules on Right to Buy receipts, grants for building safety, decarbonisation and new homes, Section 106 agreements etc, and instead ask how best to use these resources to build
more homes quickly, and invest in existing ones.
We also need clear direction on social housing regulation and the future standards we can expect. The cost of meeting new building safety and energy efficiency rules has shot up. Since 2016, projected rental incomes have fallen by £3bn, while repairs and maintenance spending has risen by £2.4bn since 2021.
Building recovery: ramping up social housing construction could boost economy Planning reform is centre stage and will certainly help unlock hundreds of thousands of homes and investment held back by our planning system. Returning targets to local authorities is essential, but we also need clarity on what sits under those targets by tenure.
Public investment is essential for housebuilding to rebound and to support much-needed economic growth. National Housing Federation research this year shows that a large expansion of building social housing could deliver tens of billions of pounds of social value and economic growth, including creating 140,000 jobs, resulting in a £12bn profit for the taxpayer over 30 years.
The government will have help from the many examples of what works well. Following London’s example with estate regeneration and development corporations, more flexible, long-term investment should be made in regeneration to deliver the homes of all tenures that will meet high standards well into the future. These could be excellent candidates for Labour’s new towns, to regenerate spaces and deliver
Geeta Nanda, until recently was chief executive of Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing
homes, amenities and infrastructure.
The housing-first approach to countering homelessness, supported by Crisis, has been a resounding success in Newcastle and London, and shows that providing a home first, with wrap-around support, leads to successful tenancies. Meanwhile, the Older People’s Housing Taskforce has worked to expand accommodation and support for an ageing population. Pension funds and investors are also ready to support additional delivery of new homes in the affordable and private rental space.
Delivering 1.5 million homes in five years requires a long-term plan, and action is needed now to achieve this.
In government, Labour must immediately begin working with the housing sector to deliver well-suited and timely solutions. The housing sector stands ready to work with the government; we must now be heard. n
First published by Property Week. Reproduced with permission.
BELOW:
Hammersmith Hospital key worker homes by Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing
Get small housebuilders back to building new homes
Paul Rickard on how the adoption of a more permissive planning regime for small sites can lead to a renaissance for London’s SME housebuilders
Like many developers, large and small, we welcome the Government’s ambitions for housing delivery and want to work with them constructively and play our part. We have submitted our consultation response on the proposed changes to the NPPF and we are broadly supportive of what the new government is seeking to achieve.
But we have to be clear. These changes are a positive start and only a positive start. Now is the time for innovation, bravery, and a longed for holistic and pragmatic approach to housing.
One small change could have a huge and lasting impact on delivery. That change is the introduction of an explicit presumption in favour of sustainable development on small sites. This would provide a vital lifeline to the Small and Medium sized builders, who build out almost all small sites.
The need to provide such a lifeline is paramount. In 1988, SME housebuilders were responsible for building 39% of new homes, today this figure stands at less than 10% and over the past year we saw over 4,300 companies in the construction space go insolvent, the vast majority of them SMEs. If we are to deliver anywhere close to the target 1.5m homes this atrophy of the SME sector has to be completely reversed, including through more explicit support in the planning system for SME developers. This is an area where the Housing Minister agrees with us - we are vital to helping deliver the uplifted housing targets soon to be issued to local authorities.
We have for the last three-years been leading on a campaign to do just this. We have gathered support from over 70 organisations including Barratt Homes, G15 and the National Housing Federation, calling for a more favourable planning regime to be introduced to unlock small brownfield sites.
The latest consultation around a ‘brownfield passport’ is welcome and there is plenty of evidence supporting the positive impact design codes and a presumption in favour can make. When Croydon council introduced guidelines for urban intensification they saw almost three times more housing delivery on small sites than the next highest delivering borough. However, the
government proposals could go further and provide focused support for the SME sector.
To support SMEs we need a new policy on small sites whereby if threshold levels of affordable housing of any tenure and mix is proposed, there is a presumption in favour of planning and no requirement to undertake a viability assessment. That is unless the application of policies in the NPPF that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear objective reason for refusing the development, or the adverse impact of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.
This isn’t a radical shift in planning, but for an SME with perhaps just one shot at the planning
To support SMEs we need a new policy on small sites whereby if threshold levels of affordable housing of any tenure and mix is proposed, there is a presumption in favour of planning and no requirement to undertake a viability assessment.
system, it is crucial. What our recommendation would do is ultimately tilt the balance in favour of development so long as it is a small brownfield parcel of land and meets the affordable housing threshold target (of any tenure) set by the relevant local authority.
Critically, this would not cost the Treasury a penny. It would incentivise brownfield development, and support the delivery of genuinely additional affordable housing. Our research last year showed that a presumption in favour of small sites could unlock up to 110,000 new homes within walking distance of public transport in England’s ten largest urban settlements alone.
The need to do this and have a presumption in favour is clear, with research by Lichfields in 2020 indicating that it takes on average 60 weeks to
Paul Rickard is Managing Director of Pocket Living
gain a planning determination on small sites, which is almost five times the statutory period, and almost one quarter of small sites required two or more successive applications to secure permission.
The challenge facing SMEs such as Pocket is an obvious one. Small development firms are by their very nature a riskier proposition. Exposed more than anyone to the economic elements, they are the ones most in need of support. Within the London context this is even more acute given the pressures of viability. Yet, the opportunities of developing within the capital on small brownfield sites should be greater, given the number of potential sites especially within outer London, and the overwhelming demand for affordable housing.
That demand can be best demonstrated by polling we conducted last year which clearly showed that nearly one quarter of those aged 2545 were considering leaving the capital due to high housing costs and a lack of supply – if followed through, this would see 200,000 key workers leave the capital.
But, and there must be a but, planning reform alone will not be enough to get SME housebuilders back to building new homes. What we need is the creation of a climate that actively supports our sector from both a financial perspective, and greater access to sites. We’ve some radical thoughts on the financing side, such as the sale of the Homes England Help to Buy loan book currently valued at around £17.4bn. On land supply, the public sector has a key role to play to in terms of how it disposes of sites and to whom.
By implementing these actions, we can create a more supportive and equitable environment for SME developers, fostering growth and ensuring the continued delivery of affordable homes for our communities. n
Getting Britain building again
Encouraging developers and authorities to collaborate with residents on creating local benefits when developments are proposed would help achieve national housebuilding targets, says Ben Standing
The proposed reforms clearly indicate the government’s resolve to get Britain building again at a time when the number of units approved by the planning system dropped to a 10-year low, highlighting how the current planning system isn’t working as intended.
However, planning reform will only succeed if it goes hand in hand with a dedicated drive to adequately resource planning authorities, which require sufficient people and skills to consider the merits of large, complex developments featuring a wide range of planning and legal issues.
Therefore, new funding for local authorities and a focus on accessing the necessary training – perhaps via a dedicated central resource of specific skills – would significantly help to grease the
wheels of a new planning system.
Once the consultation to the NPPF ends, we’d also like to see the government present a plan to work in close collaboration with communities, whose support will go some way to the success of building new housing developments.
In a recent Net Zero and Local Democracy report published by the Local Government Information Unit and Browne Jacobson, we found that the risk of successful challenge to new environmental measures is greater if local residents feel they haven’t been listened to, and the same is true with housing.
Therefore, it’s crucial that reform at national level doesn’t lead to projects being imposed on communities against local will. Encouraging devel-
opers and local authorities to collaborate with residents on proactively creating local benefits such as better roads, amenities and parks – rather than simply mitigating against problems created – when new developments are proposed would help to achieve national housebuilding targets. n
Ben Standing is a partner in law firm Browne Jacobson
20% off of our planning titles using code PIL20
NPPF – A missed opportunity?
In so far as viability practice is concerned, the proposed changes to the NPPF, July 2024, appear disappointing, says Andrew Golland
The document is however at consultation and hence there is a chance for feedback, remedy and hopefully improvement.
The main viability focus –Land Value Benchmarks (LVBs)
The updated NPPF (July 2024) attempts to get local planning authorities, developers and others involved in delivering housing focused more on land value benchmarks. As a starting point for testing viability, LVBs are key since they provide a sense check on whether a site will come forward or not. Where they exceed the residual value of a scheme then it can be expected that the scheme will not progress and where residual value is higher than the LVB then it will, potentially with Section 106 contributions.
The government doesn’t seem overly concerned with the issue of LVBs for brown field sites. This is sensible since value is much more mechanically determined. For example, by the open market value of commercial property being re-developed for housing, by the replacement of existing homes with (usually) more housing and/or by the conversion of existing property. For this source of supply it looks likely that the current approach to negotiating and resolving viability disputes will continue.
In this vein, it is interesting to note that government, unlike recent governments, are not seeking to increase Affordable Housing thresholds or to compel local planning authorities (LPAs) to conform to a national threshold for requiring Section 106 contributions. This is also sensible since the delivery is dependent not on scale of development or site size, but on where the site is. As I have pointed out in numerous previous bulletins, there are large sites in the North and Midlands which remain unviable, whilst very small sites in the South and Greater London, are.
The bespoke focus – LVBs for green field
The focus here does seem logical in so far that the main aim of planning policy over this parliament will be to increase housing supply through larger sites (whether these be ‘green’ or ‘grey’).
If government can influence the land values at which we expect housing to come forward then it is
only a case of making rules about what happens when the LVB is exceeded or not. On this basis housing numbers are significantly easier to estimate. Paragraph 29a of the new NPPF states:
‘Government could set indicative benchmark land values for land released from the Green Belt through national policy, to inform the policies developed on benchmark land value by local planning authorities. These should be set at a fair level, allowing for a premium above the existing use, but reflecting the need for policy delivery against the golden rules.’
The problem as ever, is with the premium to be allowed.
Annex Four XXXX
The new NPPF has an additional annex (4). This relates to ‘Viability in relation to Green Belt release’. It states:
‘For the purposes of plan making and decision taking, it is considered that a benchmark land value of [XXXX] allows an appropriate premium for landowners’
Therein lies the (Four XXXX) problem.
Government is at this stage floating the idea that LVBs for green field can be set centrally and nationally, on the basis that research shows that a ‘multiplier’ can be applied to agricultural land as a way of establishing green field LVB. Paragraph 30 cites several reports and it is fair to say that these multipliers have proven helpful in sorting out viability disputes in the past.
The problem in practice is that for many schemes residual value falls well below green field LVB. Varying the multiplier by location is feasible but it is better done on a local authority by local authority basis. This is likely to be how the process eventually rolls out.
How green field LVBs might be set centrally
It is possible to set LVBs centrally, but I think only by reference to land supply. Given that another key aspect of the new NPPF is land supply, buffers and targets, there would seem to be scope for determining benchmarks centrally, yet locally based on variations in the land supply position.
This makes sense since the land owner premium (the missing XXXXs in Annex 4) are likely to vary
Dr Andrew Golland specialises in the field of housing, planning and regeneration
according to how much land supply slack there is locally.
LPAs with more supply could set green field LVBs higher, whilst those with less supply could set LVBs lower.
Land supply, land value and LVBs Indeed, the key to setting LVBs lies in understanding the relationship between land supply and its impact on land value formation.
I have tried to sketch this out in the diagram below. This paints a picture of three local situations:
A ‘Baseline’, where increases in land supply are met with a reasonably commensurate reduction in land value. In other words here, changing planning makes a difference in terms of land values. This could be a local authority where house building has recently been making some inroads to meeting local housing needs and the LPA has a reasonably robust five year land supply;
A ‘LV inelastic’ scenario where very large increase in land supply are met with only nominal reductions in land value – land value being ‘inelastic’ to land supply. This could be a local authority where the local housing market is driven largely by a huge existing stock which has barely been increased by new build in recent years. Or simply, where a local authority has a large shortfall in housing land. Increasing land supply will help but will hardly change land values;
A ‘LV elastic’ scenario where relatively small increases in land supply are met with large reductions in land value. In the recent UK context this is harder to imagine but it is probable this is where government wants to take us. Here, we are looking at a local housing and land market where new build has recently been instrumental in price formation; i.e. new build has been adding to the local stock at a rate
of say 2% to 3% per annum; and of course, has a significant land buffer in place.
The diagram ABOVE shows 3 LVBs.
LVB A is set at a level where LVB equals land value.
LVB B assumes policy (whether by government or LPA) wants to increase community benefits by adopting a lower LVB. The thick black arrow shows this downward direction.
The key point is that where land value is inelastic to land supply, then very few benefits are gained by reducing the benchmark from LVB A to LVB B.
However, when reducing the LVB A to LVB B when considering a more elastic land market situation, significant additional Section 106 can be gained. This is shown in the red and green triangles. In practice the total amount gained at the ‘LV Elastic’ scenario, will be the addition of all three triangles added together –blue, red and green.
I have added one additional LVB C here. This is to show how low the LVB would have to be set in an inelastic land market to get anywhere near the level of contributions, all other things of course equal, to those achievable in a much more elastic market; in this the total area of blue approximates to the total area of blue (small triangle, red and green).
The main purpose of setting all this out is to make the point that setting LVBs simply by reference to a multiple of agricultural value for green field won’t work. It gives a starting point but government needs to do a lot more work in this area before committing figures to the viability assessment process.
The land owner premium is very much set and influenced by the nature of the local land market and the extent of elasticity of land values to land supply. This is an analysis that should have been carried out
years ago and it is disappointing to see another administration not committing to a full research on the matter.
We have several very expert university departments in land and planning and research should be commissioned around this issue.
Affordable Housing
There are a number of other viability related issues raised by the updated NPPF. The most significant of these appear to relate to Affordable Housing.
First, there appears to be a definite rolling back of the trend in making low cost homes ownership ‘Affordable Housing’. It seems now that the focus will be on rented homes including perhaps a greater proportion of Social Rented homes within new developments.
From a viability perspective this will have significant implications as Social Rent has the lowest revenue of all forms of Affordable. Shared Ownership often covers land value and build costs and Affordable Rent covers at least land value in many areas. The same cannot be said for Social Rent. This will mean new schemes having to nail down with the local Housing department, the tenure mix, and indeed the development mix.
Further, Paragraph 24 of the revised NPPF sets out a proposal for 50% Affordable Housing on land released from the Green Belt for residential development. This is not unachievable although as previously discussed, it will depend on location and the way the local land market is structured.
Some local authorities are looking at ‘Affordableled’ sites by which they mean sites with more than 50% Affordable Housing. It is assumed that in some cases these sites will be brought forward at nominal
plot values. This of itself begs the question as to how many land owners there are out there willing to do this. The same may apply if government assumes that sites with 50% Affordable Housing are going to come forward at very low site benchmarks.
NPPF 2024 – where does it take us on viability? NPPF makes it clear that viability assessment will play an important role going in the assessment of schemes. For larger sites I get the impression that it thinks having strict LVBs alongside knowledge of land sale values will alleviate the need for assessment.
I can’t see this happening without a lot more detailed work being done on benchmarks; and of the nature described above where land supply is factored in. Given that the policy of house building and growth is now based on green field release it will not be enough to just use the old fashioned multiplier approach. Something much more dynamic is needed.
Nevertheless we can expect viability to continue to play a strong role in plan making. New issues are always emerging; currently Future Homes and Biodiversity Net Gain are needed to be reflected in building Affordable Housing targets and in setting CIL rates (assuming this continues). On this issue government would be well advised to have another look as many Northern and Midlands authorities did not take in up on viability grounds.
Affordable Housing is going to take centre stage in viability negotiations, not least because Rachel Reeves has declared the cupboard to be bare, and presumbly as a result, there will be little scope for direct investment in Affordable Housing.
We will no doubt hear shortly from government with more detailed plans. n
What should the new government do to support first time buyers?
There is great demand for Shared Ownership but more needs to be done at government level to fully realise its potential, argues Peter Hawley
During the recent general election campaign, one key point of difference in the parties’ housing policies was that the Conservative Party pledged to introduce a new Help to Buy scheme, whereas Labour proposed alternative housing policies, largely focused on social rent.
Now elected, Labour is already pushing ahead with housing initiatives including greater powers and flexibilities in the Affordable Homes Programme, increased local authority funding for housing (to be announced in the next Budget) and changes to the Right to Buy.
Yet in all its housing and planning policy announcements recently – the Labour Party manifesto, the outline of the future Planning and Infrastructure Bill, Angela Rayner’s Statement to the House of Commons, and the revised NPPF –Shared Ownership has not been mentioned once.
Shared Ownership is one of the most effective means of first time buyers getting onto the housing ladder. It’s a very realistic alternative to Help to Buy (which enabled the purchase of almost 390,000 new build homes between 2013 to 2023) and is increasingly in popularity to such an extent that the housing market is struggling to meet demand.
Since its inception four decades ago it has become an established fixture in the housing landscape. Today approximately 202,000 households in England live in Shared Ownership homes. In 202122 alone 19,386 new Shared Ownership properties were delivered, according to the English Housing Survey. This is the highest number since records began in 2014-15 and a 14% increase on the previous year.
Traditionally Shared Ownership was most popular among those aged between 25-35 (32-37 in London) but the upper age is increasing. Today firsttime buyers are paying almost a third more to get on the property ladder than they were five years ago and in the last decade the number of private renters moving into home ownership fell by 23%.
Although Shared Ownership remains limited to those with a maximum household income of
£80,000 (£90,000 in London), many people have found that due to average house prices rising considerably more than average incomes, the impact of higher interest rates on mortgages, car and credit card loans together with the cost of food and utility bills, they can no longer afford to buy outright, and Shared Ownership is a good alternative. There is an urgent need for more support for first time buyers, whether through Help to Buy or Shared Ownership and the omission of both from any major Labour housing announcements suggests that it is in danger of being overlooked.
From my point of view, Shared Ownership already suffers from poor communications compared to Help to Buy. The significant advantage of Help to Buy was government-supported marketing: a dedicated, widely recognised brand with an effective information campaign and website which pointed would-be purchasers in the direction of suitable products. Help to Buy was instantly recognisable by consumers and had the authority and veracity that comes with being government-led.
Shared Ownership, on the other hand, has an uphill struggle with communications. There are many myths around Shared Ownership which need to be addressed. For example that Shared Ownership is only available to people with low incomes or those on social housing lists; that you can never fully own a property through Shared Ownership; that Shared Ownership properties are
Peter Hawley is a Director of SOWN, (part of Leaders Romans Group)
of inferior quality to properties sold on the open market; that It's difficult to sell a Shared Ownership property, or that Shared Ownership is only available for flats… and the list goes on.
While I don’t necessarily advocate a return of Help to Buy as a means of addressing the housing crisis, I believe that the government should allocate to Shared Ownership providers some of the resources that had previously been invested in Help to Buy. By increasing awareness, trust and desirability, the Shared Ownership sector can continue to grow, and more than compensate for the absence of Help to Buy.
Helping first time buyers and others to get on to the property ladder is vital not only for the individuals involved but, as government has been quick to point out, central to the country’s social and financial prospects. Shared Ownership is a great product and there is great demand for it – but more needs to be done at a government level to fully realise this potential. n
Amendments to Class MA commercial to residential development rights
There has never been a better time to convert a commercial building to residential use, says Matthew Robinson
Following changes to Class MA commercial to residential development rights in February 2024, there has never been a better time to convert a commercial building to residential use – but there are still challenges as well as opportunities. Here I give an architect’s view on how to best address the practical, design & procedural hurdles of Class MA conversions.
In August 2021, the General Permitted Development Order introduced Class MA conversion rights. This enabled commercial buildings (Use Class E) to be converted to residential use (Class C3) via permitted development (PD). Further amendments to this order published in February 2024 (and actioned from 5 March) removed any previous restriction on the size of buildings to be converted as well as the three-year vacancy requirement. This legislative change has therefore created new opportunities for the conversion of larger commercial buildings, as well as those still in use.
The amendment came about following changes to the NPPF in late 2023, which put greater emphasis on utilising brownfield development and increasing density in urban areas. Class MA conversions offer a tangible strategy in achieving this goal.
On paper commercial to residential conversions present a favourable option for developers, as they
are generally quicker to deliver and are therefore a more cost-efficient option. When designed well, conversions can offer a meaningful contribution to the housing shortfall as commercial areas are usually well connected to public transport and within walking distance of local amenities. Having an existing building skeleton to convert rather than building new also reduces associated embodied carbon, therefore often making conversion the more sustainable option.
What then are the hurdles faced in practice?
In terms of planning legislation, the amended Class MA rights still do not apply to listed buildings or those subject to Article 4 Direction, within a site of scientific interest, outstanding natural beauty or agricultural tenancy, which does somewhat limit viability.
For opportunities that do fall within Class MA rights, the main challenges of conversion relate to design: notably, access to natural light and ventilation; ability to make improvements to the existing building fabric regarding thermal and sound performance; provision of external amenity space, and lack of privacy and security. This is all because commercial buildings are of course not designed for residential use, and the suitability of commercial buildings for
Matthew Robinson is Senior Architect at planning and design consultancy, Boyer
conversion varies drastically. Any external changes to an existing building needed to address these challenges are usually outside of PD rights and are therefore subject to further planning applications. Developers will then find themselves at the mercy of local authorities. Just because the planning route is more direct, the path to a completed residential conversion may well be more complex than how it looks on paper.
In summary, these are the main considerations of conversion from an architectural perspective:
• Ensure there is adequate access to natural light. Dark and isolated homes are not well regarded by planning authorities or the housing market, so it is therefore imperative to provide adequate levels of natural light for every home created. The existing availability of daylight can be improved by installation of rooflights or new windows, however any external changes to an existing building are subject to an additional planning application. It is therefore more cost effective to select buildings that have sufficiently sized and orientated windows on most or all elevations. Buildings with a shallow floorplate or access to an internal courtyard are well suited to conversion as they will have better access to natural daylight. Commercial buildings often have deep floorplans with windows only on the narrow elevations. This does not easily convert to residential, therefore a shallow floor plan with windows on the long elevation or dual aspect works best for conversion.
• The quality of the existing building fabric, in terms of thermal and sound performance, must be considered. Thermal insulation, either by retrofit or upgrading the existing fabric, is almost always
required to meet current building regulations. Single pane windows and single skin buildings will usually require more work to meet current performance thresholds, although some older buildings with 9” (215mm) thick brick walls make good conversions if they are of good build quality. Upgrading an existing building’s thermal performance can be demanding as older buildings often have crooked walls and are prone to air leakage, therefore not best suited for high thermal performance.
• Sound insulation is also difficult to improve without significant alterations to an existing building. Replacing windows, for instance, will be subject to a further planning application and will likely be required to meet current building regulations and provide a comfortable space for living. An alternative can be secondary glazing; however, the cost and user convenience must be considered.
• Windows of commercial buildings are likely to be the sole means of ventilation in a PD conversion. If it is impractical to keep windows open, for instance if the building is public facing with no or little separation from public realm, there may be little or no ventilation. If this is the case, it may be best to submit an additional planning application to enable increased ventilation, either passively through more windows or through (additional) mechanical systems.
• Security and privacy are big considerations. Most commercial buildings will be located in well trafficked public areas which do not naturally make secure homes. Living in a converted ground floor flat on a busy high street, for instance, is only going to appeal to some residents as there is a perceived greater risk to safety and wellbeing. Defensive measures such as landscaping or providing a perimeter wall around the property can provide security and defensible space. However, these measures may be subject to additional planning applications.
• Landscaping can provide external amenity space, which is not easily found with existing commercial buildings. Most if not all local authorities will want homes to be provided with private and communal amenity space through the provision of balconies, patios, gardens and open landscaped spaces.
• PD conversions are now subject to national space standards (March 2015). When converting existing buildings this requirement may lead to peculiarly shaped rooms, due to the nature and build quality of older buildings or the existing structural elements. This may result in bespoke designs that are more challenging and costly to build.
What is the solution?
These challenges can be avoided by intelligently sourcing existing buildings that are best suited for conversion. Buildings that were once residential are obviously best suited to being converted back, because they will have more domestic proportions with smaller, more frequent windows, and are usually set back from the public realm, offering better security and potential for external amenity space.
As noted, a shortfall in any area of consideration can be compensated by submission of further planning applications. This can create a more valuable end product and help achieve greater opportunities for
natural light, ventilation, amenity space and security, helping to address the considerations that potential residents will be looking for.
If there are too many constraints, such as contamination or a poor existing structure, then it may well be better to demolish and rebuild.
In summary, the amended class MA PD rights will provide more brownfield development and more opportunities for housing within urban centres. There are, however, several considerations that will determine whether a building is suitable for conversion as outlined above, which will need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
Engagement with architects and planning consultants from an early viability stage can enable developers to select the most suitable buildings for conversion, and help avoid unforeseen challenges. This collaboration will determine the success of the Class MA amendments in achieving its aim: to provide more good quality housing in sustainable and deliverable locations. n
Government intensifies compulsory purchase rules
We need a holistic approach to addressing the housing crisis, says Lawrence Turner
Earlier this year, the then Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) gave councils new powers to buy land more cheaply in a bid to support the delivery of more social and affordable housing. The change, which allows councils to buy land for development through compulsory purchase orders (CPOs), removes ‘hope value’ costs which otherwise benefit the profitability of the sale for both the landlord and the developer.
This aspect of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act (LURA), which has tended to be overshadowed by other, more headline-grabbing policies, is in fact not new as a policy proposal.
The Labour party made a similar announcement in June last year – a suggestion which met with concern from the property industry.
At the time, the British Property Federation raised the issue of protracted legal challenges and the risk of regeneration schemes being delayed or not progressing. It stated that any incoming government would be unable to deliver such a policy in its first term
Similarly the National Federation of Builders raised concerns about changes to land use which may not be compatible with broader development plans.
The National Housing Federation, on the other hand, saw potential benefits in diverting “landowner profits into desperately needed new social housing and community infrastructure,” which, it said, could only be achieved through a reduction in land values across the market. This, of course could come at the detriment of many sectors of the property industry.
Now in government, Labour as formally announced to, “Further reform compulsory purchase compensation rules to improve land assembly, speed up site delivery, and deliver housing, infrastructure, amenity, and transport benefits in the public interest. We will take steps to ensure that for specific types of development schemes, landowners are awarded fair compensation rather than inflated prices based on the prospect of planning permission”.
The enactment of the CPO regulations within the LURA earlier this year broadened CPO powers
for local authorities and Homes England by allowing the removal of hope value. However, the rules still require an authority to apply to the Secretary of State to demonstrate that the removal of hope value is in the public interest. This leaves local authorities with uncertainty as to what development would be in the public interest, and ultimately whether their application will be approved by the Secretary of State. By comparison, Labour has committed to legislate so that public bodies can use CPO powers to acquire land without the need for individual approvals by a Secretary of State, effectively removing this area of uncertainty.
The use of compulsory purchase to acquire land for housing is not new: compulsory purchase orders (which are more usually reserved for large scale infrastructure schemes) have previously been used successfully to facilitate development. Examples include the ongoing major regeneration of Leicester’s Waterside which will deliver 500 new homes along with office and retail space; the development of derelict land on the edge of Sheffield city centre for a mix of new homes, offices, retail, leisure and a hotel; the acquisition of an empty supermarket and a terrace of empty shops in Wellingborough to pave the way for housing development and the development of new housing in Helmsley, North Yorkshire that had been stalled by the former landowner.
So there are some success stories, but at what cost?
My main concern is that, even with the promised changes to legislation, CPO can be an ineffective, time-consuming and costly process; and many local authorities will lack the resources to implement it.
The CPO process frequently involves negotiations with multiple landowners, legal challenges, and delays. Landowners may choose to challenge decisions through judicial review, further prolonging the process. As such, it is far from the quick and efficient means of unlocking land for new development which is needed.
Even if effective, CPOs are just one piece of the puzzle when it comes to delivering new homes. The wider planning system in the UK is excruciatingly slow and bureaucratic, with Local Plans and plan-
Lawrence
Turner is a
Director with planning and design consultancy, Boyer
ning applications often taking years to complete and the intrinsic problems that have led to this situation must also be addressed.
Other complications typically involve protracted negotiations with owners, legal challenges and extensive public consultation and paperwork. I have seen instances in Bristol, where I am based, where CPOs have taken more than 20 years on some sites. Unfortunately, this policy doesn’t have the potential to deliver the homes as quickly or as cheaply as the headlines suggest.
We need to see a more holistic approach to addressing the housing crisis, including reforms to the planning system, providing support to councils, reviewing the Green Belt and delivering new homes in both sustainable brown and greenfield locations.
The new government looks set on addressing some of these challenges, but we would caution against rapid reform for rapid reform’s sake: any changes must be carefully considered from all points of view and this includes comprehensive consultation with the wider property industry. n
The Aim of the Society is to stimulate a wider concern for the beauty of the capital city, for the preservation of its charms and the careful consideration of its developments
WHY DO WE EXIST?
We believe that London's future must be shaped by contemporary culture as well as its rich and layered history
WHAT WE DO
Celebrate and enjoy the capital’s culture and architectural history. Debate how we plan a future that is beautiful, sustainable and fair
HOW WE DO IT
Engage Londoners with how the capital is designed and planned through tours, walks, talks and debates
FIND OUT MORE www.londonsociety.org.uk
CLIPBOARD
Restoring the planning system
Over the last few years, an ever-increasing amount has been demanded from both the planning system and those who work within it.
Changes to national planning policy, the introduction of CIL, biodiversity net gain and the Building Safety Act 2002, nutrient and water neutrality requirements, questions of embodied carbon and now 'Scope 3' emissions - these have all have massively increased both the workload of the average local planning authority and its complexity. Yet the resources and staffing deal with these issues has not kept pace with all the additional demands.
Like a classic car, or a listed building allowed to deteriorate over time, restoring the planning system will require great care and resources. You need to think carefully about the changes you make, or else you run the risk of unintended consequences. They are harder to avoid than you might think. –Nicola Gooch in The Planner
Ripping out the blockages
"Understandably the Chancellor dipped lightly into the world of planning in her speech to the Labour Party conference.
'Ripping out the blockages' of a system that places great value on community consultation and which turns on both local and national level political decision taking, suggests that the Chancellor is inclined to extend permitted development rights. Such rights typically avoid consultation and constrain the ability of a politically driven decision maker to say 'no'.
This would be consistent with the direction of travel signalled by the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government's planning reform working paper that is proposing 'brownfield passports' akin to permissions in principle, and which also extols the use of Local Development Orders.” – Fergus Charlton, planning partner at Michelmores
Fixing planning
In her first speech as chancellor last July, Rachel Reeves pledged to reintroduce mandatory housing targets and reform the National Planning Policy
The Park Lane ‘boulevard’
Reviving the Park Lane ‘boulevard’ plan will need backing from another Hugh Grosvenor: the present Duke of Westminster. It is 14 years since architect Liam Hennessy showed the Grosvenor Estate how to turn Park Lane’s Mayfair side into a 15m-wide boulevard, with not a tree lost, by slightly narrowing the 40m-wide central reservation and widening the northbound carriageway into an eight-lane, two-way road. I pestered Grosvenor in The Evening Standard in 2014. They conceded it was “a great way to create new public space”. The obvious thing would be to extend the new Mayoral Planning Zone to Park Lane. – Peter Bill in PW
Framework by the end of the month.
Reeves said the new government would reform the planning system and prioritise brownfield and grey-belt land for development, adding that a new taskforce had been created “to accelerate the stalled housing sites in our country”.
The “bold” speech was welcomed by industry figures, although many cautioned the government that fixing planning would not solve the housing crisis on its own.
Work together in devolution deserts, says Rayner
In a letter to local leaders, Angela Rayner, deputy prime minister and housing secretary, called on the regions without devolution powers to partner with the government to “deliver the most ambitious programme of devolution this country has ever seen”.
Rayner invited local leaders in ‘devolution deserts’ to work together to take on powers for planning and housing, as well as in areas such as transport, adult education and skills.
“For too long, Westminster government has tightly gripped control and held back opportunities and potential for towns, cities and villages across the country,” Rayner said.
“Last week, with the prime minister, I had the
pleasure of meeting the metro mayors in England. We discussed how to have a proper, grown-up conversation around economic growth, and how to deliver that through better housing, skills and jobs for local people.
“I want to work with more places to help them use these enhanced powers and role, because I want to drive growth in every part of the country. For any area considering it, now is the time to take the plunge and speak to us about how we can work with you to transform your regions.”
Rayner also announced the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities’ name would return to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
Housing target too high
Oxford City Council’s local plan has been rejected by the Planning Inspectorate for setting its housing target too high.
While planning inspectors accepted the council’s plans for maximising the number of new homes built within city boundaries by 2040, with 481 homes a year proposed, they rejected the council’s assessment that 1,322 homes a year are needed and recommended the council withdraw its draft local plan. Of the 1,322 homes proposed, around 841 would
CLIPBOARD
need to be built outside Oxford’s boundaries.
The council originally submitted the plan for public examination in March. Inspectors later held an initial set of public hearings in June to decide whether the Local Plan 2040 satisfies national planning policy and other legal requirements.
The Planning Inspectorate said the standard method for calculating housing need should be used, meaning the council would need to use thecalculation of 762 homes a year.
Susan Brown, leader of Oxford City Council, said the council was “alarmed and extremely disappointed” by the inspector’s recommendation.
She added planning inspectors “failed to grasp the seriousness of Oxford’s housing crisis” and “don’t appear to have heeded the clear message from government, which requires all councils to up their housing delivery ambitions”.
She said: “The current standard method is not fit for purpose and flies in the face of the government’s policy intention to overhaul a broken national planning system and deliver 1.5 million homes.
“The current standard method does not even take account of population increases that have already happened in Oxford and across Oxfordshire recorded in the census.
“Using this discredited method to calculate how many homes we need would make the city’s housing crisis worse.”
John Lewis wins its first housing approval
John Lewis has won the first planning approval for its venture into house building, with a green light to add 350 flats on top of a Waitrose store in outer London.
Bromley approved the retailer's application to keep the Waitrose supermarket at ground level and add three residential blocks up to 24 floors, providing roughly 320 rental flats and 30 affordable homes.
The planning permission is a start for its efforts to make better use of its real estate holdings to build housing alongside retail outlets. "This is a milestone for us," said Katherine Russell, who leads John Lewis's rental housing strategy. "The unique thing about building for rent is that homes do not need to be sold off
and this means a new project can come to life quickly."
Ramming the changes through
In the wake of the housing wars of the 2010s, many of the brightest minds in planning turned their attention to how you could build housing in ways that took communities with you. They developed ideas such as estate regeneration ballots, neighbourhood plans, building beautiful, infrastructure first, street votes.
Starmer’s team, by contrast, seem to be taking the view that while that kind of thinking has its place, there is ultimately no alternative to ramming the changes through, especially if you have the majority. – Robert Colvile in the Sunday Times
Free resources to create local design codes
The Design Council has launched a set of resources aimed at supporting local authorities in England with the development of design codes. Available for free download, they provide comprehensive guidance to assist councils in creating and implementing design codes that reflect local character, encourage community engagement, and align with government priorities such as housing development and economic growth.
“The Government wants to see high-quality, well-designed and sustainable homes and places
brought forward,” said Joanna Averley, chief planner at the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government.
“We believe that design codes, as well as up-todate local plans, masterplans and other design guides, will play an important role in delivering this, enabling local areas to establish a shared vision for change and clearly set out what high-quality and good design means for them.
Design codes are intended to be instrumental in shaping places that resonate with local needs and character. They are also supposed to provide greater clarity around planning, supporting broader government objectives, including increasing the supply of housing and fostering economic development.
“Design codes are a critical tool to achieve the new government’s manifesto pledge to create 1.5 million ‘high-quality, well-designed and sustainable homes’ and places that increase climate resilience and promote nature recovery”, explains Edward Hobson, Director of Partnerships at the Design Council.
“Used well, design codes can increase the quality of proposals being bought forward to planning, helping local authorities meet their housing targets while supporting vibrant, healthy communities. And, by moving community engagement upstream in the development process, they give local people a genuine stake in shaping how new homes and development add to their locality.”
John Lewis Partnership scheme for homes over Waitrose. Architect: Assael
CLIPBOARD
Upwards PD applications
The authorities that approved the most building upwards PD applications in 2023/24 – and those with the highest refusal rates
In April 2021, the government introduced a new group of “building upwards” permitted development rights. These allow the upwards extension of existing buildings without the need for a full planning application.
According to the latest data from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), 274 applications were submitted for the most popular of these, which allows building upwards for householder extensions, over the 12 months to March 2024.
Of the 274 applications, 141 were granted, resulting in an overall approval rate across England of about 51 per cent. Some 133 applications were refused, resulting in an overall refusal rate across England of about 49 per cent.
Cheshire West and Chester Council received more of this type of application than any other authority. Over the 12-month period, 15 applications were submitted to the council.
The London Borough of Camden received 14 applications in 2023/24, while third-placed London Borough of Redbridge received ten. Camden London Borough Council also granted more applications than any other authority, approving all the 14 applications it received in the 2023/24 financial year.
Of the authorities that received three or more applications for building upwards householder extensions in the 12 months to March 2024, five had a refusal rate of 100 per cent.
Of these five, the London Borough of Sutton refused all five of the applications they determined over the 12-month period, while the London Borough of Bexley, Reigate and Banstead Borough Council, South Oxfordshire District Council and the London Borough of Waltham Forest each refused the three applications they received.
Building upwards to create dwelling houses on detached blocks of flats
Meanwhile, 93 applications were submitted for building upwards to create additional homes on detached blocks of flats over the 12-month period, making this the second most popular of the new building upwards rights.
ABOVE: The village of Charing as depicted on the Agas map of 1578. The mewes behind the cross became the site for Trafalgar Square. The Haymarket runs to the top left and Strand to the right. The prominent church is Saint Martin in the Fields – Ranald McDonald on X, image: Wikimedia Commons
CLIPBOARD
Redbridge London Borough Council and London Borough of Waltham Forest received more of these applications (ten) than any other authorities in England in the 2023/24 financial year.
The London boroughs of Croydon and Sutton received the next highest number, each recording eight applications, while Dorset Council and the Royal Borough of Greenwich each received seven. Of the 93 applications submitted for building upwards to create dwelling houses on detached blocks of flats, 48 were granted and 45 were refused. In total, 48 authorities approved applications for this right over the 12-month period.
Redbridge Council also approved more applications than any other authority. In the 2023/24 financial year, it approved six applications, which equates to an approval rate of 60 per cent.
Waltham Forest Council approved five – or 50 per cent – of the ten applications it received in 2023/24.
Of the authorities that received three or more applications for the right over the 12 month period, just one council refused 100 per cent of the applications it received.
Runnymede Borough Council refused all four applications it received, while Greenwich Council refused six of the seven applications it received in the 2023/24 financial year. – Julian Amani in Planning
A Great British rebrand?
Good question. Someone has clearly been following the political debate because leaders seem increasingly attracted to this patriotic flourish. So if something in your life feels a bit flat, a bit underwhelming, a Great British rebrand does seem the solution du jour, to use a Great British French phrase.
Before I go on, I hope you are enjoying this sentence because it is not just a sentence. It is a Great British sentence….There was always a touch of Great British branding around, though it was mostly ironic: the Great British weather, the Great British bank holiday, the Great British Rail sandwich, the Great British breakfast.
Business and political branding tended to just use British, and it was not always the hallmark of excellence one might have wished. British Leyland, British
Anyone for Tennis?
The All England Lawn Tennis Club (AELTC) submitted hybrid plans to the London boroughs of Merton and Wandsworth seeking full planning permission for the erection of 38 grass tennis courts, the provision of a boardwalk around the perimeter of and across Wimbledon Park Lake, and the creation of a new area of parkland. The proposals also seek outline permission to build an 8,000-seat show court.
The 156-year-old club claimed the plans, which would involve expanding the facility into Wimbledon Park on a former golf course site, would enable it to host qualifying matches and practice facilities and ensure Wimbledon remains the world’s most prestigious tennis tournament.
Merton Council’s planning committee in October approved the scheme, which would involve the development of Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) - afforded the same status and level of protection as green belt in the London Plan.
However, the London Borough of Wandsworth’s planning committee rejected it in November subject to referral to the Greater London Authority (GLA) in line with officers’ recommendations, concluding its benefits did not outweigh the harm it would do to Metropolitan Open Land (MOL).
In a report published on 20 September, GLA planning officers acknowledged that “there are some adverse impacts” such as the loss of open space and harm to MOL.
Nonetheless, they found that the scheme complied “with most relevant planning policies at national, regional and local level”, and recommended it for approval.
Steel and British Coal were either privatised, broken up or sent to the Great British Insolvency Service in the sky.
I think the blame starts with Boris Johnson, which feels like a safe bet even if it's wrong. With Johnson one could never be sure if this was heartfelt, cynical, ironic or all three. There was The Great British Bake Off, but Johnsonian hyperbole appropriated the prefix, throwing the words in front of some otherwise prosaic concept as a way of making a bad idea seem interesting and patriotic….Post-Johnson, the Conservatives began to use the idea more widely.
The Tories came up with Great British Nuclear (once the British Nuclear Group), an exciting name for an industry heavily dependent on companies that were not, er, British.
Not to be outdone, Labour is now promising Great British Energy, which is something to do with its clean energy mission, but is somewhat lacking in
Great British detail just now.
Keir Starmer has made setting up Great British Energy one of his five key missions, which is a bit disappointing since simply setting up a company is not really the hard part. I have wondered if other nations feel the same compulsion. Are there similar Fabulous French, Glorious German or Champion Chinese brands? – Robert Shrimsley in the FT Weekend Magazine. n
All England Club, left, expansion into Wimbledon Park, right. Image: Allies&Morrison/AELTC
Downward trends in planning applications and decisions continue
Latest planning performance by English districts and London boroughs: planning applications in England between April to June 2024
OVERVIEW
Between April to June 2024, district level planning authorities in England:
• received 84,400 applications for planning permission, down 9% from the same quarter a year earlier;
• decided 81,800 applications for planning permission, down 6% from the same quarter a year earlier;
• granted 70,200 decisions, down 7% from the same quarter a year earlier; this is equivalent to 86% of decisions, unchanged from the same quarter a year earlier;
• decided 91% of major applications within 13 weeks or the agreed time, up 1 percentage point from the same quarter a year earlier; and decided 20% of major applications within the statutory period of 13 weeks, unchanged from the same quarter a year earlier;
• granted 7,600 residential applications, down 5% from the same quarter a year earlier;
• granted 1,600 applications for commercial developments, down 9% from the same quarter a year earlier; and
• decided 42,100 householder development applications, down 12% from the same quarter a year earlier. This accounted for 51% of all decisions, down from 55% a year earlier.
In the year ending June 2024, district level planning authorities:
• granted 280,000 decisions, down 11% from the year ending June 2023; and
• granted 31,600 residential applications, down 8% from the year ending June 2023.
Planning applications received
During April to June 2024, authorities undertaking district level planning in England received 84,400 applications for planning permission, down 9% from the same quarter a year earlier. In the year ending June 2024, authorities received 342,600 planning applications, down 10% from the year ending June 2023 (Live Table P134, PS1 Dashboard).
Planning decisions
Authorities reported 81,800 decisions on planning applications in April to June 2024, down 6% from the same quarter a year earlier. In the year ending June 2024, authorities decided 327,200 planning applications, down 10% from the year ending June 2023 (Live Tables P120/P133/P134, PS1/PS2 Dashboard).
Applications granted
During April to June 2024, authorities granted 70,200 decisions, down 7% from the same quarter a year earlier. This represented 86% of all decisions, unchanged from the same quarter a year earlier. In the year ending June 2024, authorities granted 280,000 decisions, down 11% from the year ending June 2023. Authorities granted 86% of all decisions, down 1 percentage point from the year ending June 2023 (Live Tables P120/P133, PS2 Dashboard).
Applications on hand
Authorities reported that they had 119,400 applications on hand as at 1 April 2024, down 14% from the same quarter a year earlier. This is 46% above the number of decisions made during the quarter. The corresponding figure for the same quarter a year earlier was 59%. Taking account of numbers of applications received, decisions made and applications withdrawn during the quarter gives a total of 115,000 as at the end of June 2024, down 16% from the same quarter a year earlier (Live Table P133, PS1 dashboard).(Live Table P133, PS1 dashboard).
Historical context
Figure 1 shows that, since about 2009-10, the
numbers of applications received, decisions made and applications granted have each followed a similar pattern. As well as the usual within-year pattern of peaks in the Summer (July to September quarter) and troughs in the Autumn and Winter (October to December and January to March quarters), there was a clear downward trend during the 2008 economic downturn, followed by a period of stability. There was a large dip in 2020 following the start of the pandemic and a subsequent recovery in early 2021, including a particular peak in applications received, but since the peak there has been a steep downward trend.
Regional breakdowns
Table 1 shows how numbers of applications received, decisions made and decisions granted varied by region. It also shows how the percentage of decisions granted varies widely by region, from 82% in London to 91% in North East (Live Table P133, PS1/PS2 Dashboard).
Decisions granted
Figure 2 summarises the distribution of the percentage of decisions granted across authorities for major, minor and other developments using box and whisker plots. The ends of the box are the upper and lower quartiles, meaning that 50% of local authorities fall within this range, with the horizontal line in the centre of the box representing the median. The whiskers are the two lines above and below the box that are 1.5 times the size of the box (the interquartile range) with the dots representing outliers. Figure 2 shows that the range between the whiskers for the percentage of applications granted is widest between authorities for major developments (40% to 100%), followed by minor developments (52% to 100%) and other developments (72% to 100%) (PS2 Dashboard).
Speed of decisions
In April to June 2024, 91% of major applications were decided within 13 weeks or within the agreed time, up 1 percentage point from the same quarter a year earlier. 20% of major applications were decided within the statutory time period of 13 weeks, unchanged from the same quarter a
Planning decisions by development type, speed of decision and local planning authority.
All tables and figures can be found here: https://tinyurl.com/5n7jzdn2
Source: DLUHC/ONS
year earlier.
In the same quarter, 87% of minor applications were decided within 8 weeks or within the agreed time, up 3 percentage points from the same quarter a year earlier. 41% of minor applications were decided within the statutory time period of 8 weeks, up 3 percentage points from the same quarter a year earlier.
Also in the same quarter, 91% of other applications were decided within 8 weeks or within the agreed time, up 2 percentage points from the same quarter a year earlier. 61% of other applications were decided within the statutory time period of 8 weeks, up 5 percentage points from the same quarter a year earlier.
For more information on major, minor and other developments please see the PS1 and PS2 district planning matter guidance notes.
Figure 3 shows that range between the whiskers for the percentage of decisions made in time this quarter for major developments was 67% to 100%, for minor developments it was 64% to 100% and for other developments it was 76% to 100% (PS2 Dashboard).
Use of performance agreements
‘Performance agreement’ is an umbrella term used here to refer to Planning Performance Agreements, Extensions of Time and Environmental Impact Assessments. Between April to June 2024, 40% of all planning application decisions involved a performance agreement. Major developments were more likely to involve a performance agreement compared to minor and other developments with 76% of major decisions involving a planning agreement, compared with 51% of minor decisions and 33% of other decisions (Reference Table 2, PS2 Dashboard).
Figure 4 shows, from April 2010, the numbers of decisions on major, minor and other developments made involving a performance agreement, compared with numbers without a performance agreement. Notwithstanding definition changes, there has been a marked increase in the use of agreements since early 2013 (see Technical Notes for more information). This longer upward trend has been driven by both the additional scope for
recording them and their additional use (Live Table P120, PS2 Dashboard).
Figure 5 shows that in the quarter to June 2024, 94% of major development decisions involving performance agreements were made on time. In comparison, 83% of major decisions not involving performance agreements were made within the statutory time limit of 13 weeks (see Reference Table 2, PS2 Dashboard).
Performance of individual district level
local planning authorities
The existing approach to measuring the performance of authorities was introduced by the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 and is based on assessing local planning authorities’ performance on the speed and quality of their decisions on applications for major and non-major development. Where an authority is formally designated by the Secretary of State as underperforming, applicants have had the option of submitting their applications for major and non-major development (and connected applications) directly to the Planning Inspectorate (who act on behalf of the Secretary of State) for determination. See Improving planning performance: criteria for designation for more information.
Speed of decisions
The designation thresholds, below which a local
planning authority is eligible for designation are:
For applications for major development: less than 60% of an authority’s decisions made within the statutory determination period or such extended period as has been agreed in writing with the applicant;
For applications for non-major development: less than 70% of an authority’s decisions made within the statutory determination period or such extended period as has been agreed in writing with the applicant.
Quality of decisions
The threshold for designation on applications for both major and non-major development, above which a local planning authority is at risk of designation, is 10% of an authority’s total number of decisions on applications made during the assessment period being overturned at appeal.
Once the figures for the relevant period have been published in Live Table P152 or P154, which identify local planning authorities are at risk of designation by exceeding the threshold, they are invited to contact Departmental officials with any data corrections, and information on any exceptional circumstances applying to the authority that might be used as reasons why the Secretary of State should not designate them. The Secretary of State then takes this evidence into account
when making decisions on which authorities should be designated.
See Live Tables P152/P154
Five local planning authorities are currently designated by the Secretary of State in relation to their planning performance. These are Uttlesford District Council (on 8th February 2022), Chorley Council (on 19th December 2023) and Lewes District Council (on 8th May 2024) in relation to quality of decision-making for major applications; and St Albans City and District Council on 6th March 2024) and Bristol City Council (on 6th March 2024) in relation to speed of decision-making for non-major applications.
Residential decisions
In April to June 2024, 10,700 decisions were made on applications for residential developments[footnote 3], of which 7,600 (71%) were granted. The number of residential decisions made was down 5% from the same quarter a year earlier, with the number granted down 5% from the same quarter a year earlier. 900 major residential decisions were granted, up 4% from the same quarter a year earlier and 6,700 major residential decisions were granted, down 6% from the same quarter a year earlier (Live Table P120A, PS2 Dashboard).
In the year ending June 2024, 44,500 decisions were made on applications for residential developments, of which 31,600 (71%) were granted. The number of residential decisions made was down 6% from the previous year, with the number granted down 8% from the year ending June 2023. 3,800 major residential decisions were granted, down 9% from the previous year and 27,800 minor residential decisions were granted, down 7% from the previous year.
Residential units
The figures collected by the Department are the numbers of decisions on planning applications submitted to local planning authorities, rather than the number of units included in each application, such as the number of homes in the case of housing developments. The Department supplements this information by obtaining statistics on housing permissions from a contractor, Glenigan[footnote 4].
The latest provisional figures show that permission for 231,000 homes was given in the year to June 2024, down 15% from the 270,000 homes granted permission in the year to June 2023. On an ongoing basis, figures are revised to ensure that any duplicates are removed as far as possible, and also to include any projects that local planning authorities may not have processed: they are therefore subject to change, and the latest quar-
ter’s provisional figures tend to be revised upwards.For the previous seven quarters, the year to figures have been revised upwards by an average of 0.5% quarter to quarter. These figures are provided here to give contextual information to users and have not been designated as National Statistics.
Commercial decisions
IIn April to June 2024, 1,800 decisions were made on applications for commercial developments [footnote 5], of which 1,600 (87%) were granted. The number of commercial decisions made was down 7% from the same quarter a year earlier, with the number granted down 9% from the same quarter a year earlier. 300 major commercial decisions were granted, down 17% from the same quarter a year earlier and 1,300 minor commercial decisions were granted, down 7% from the same quarter a year earlier (Live Table P120B, PS2 Dashboard).
In the year ending June 2024, 7,600 decisions
were made on applications for commercial developments, of which 6,600 (87%) were granted. The number of commercial decisions made was down 5% from the previous year, with the number granted down 7% from the year ending June 2023. 1,400 major commercial decisions were granted, down 8% from the previous year and 5,200 minor commercial decisions were granted, down 6% from the previous year.
Trends in the percentage of residential and commercial decisions granted SEE Fig 7 BELOW
Householder developments
Householder developments are those developments to a residence which require planning permission such as extensions, loft conversions and conservatories (see Definitions section of the Technical Notes).
The number of decisions made on householder developments was 42,100 in the quarter ending
June 2024, accounting for 51% of all decisions, down from 55% of all decisions made in the quarter ending June 2023. Authorities granted 89% of these applications and decided 93% within eight weeks or the agreed time (Reference Table 2, PS2 Dashboard).
In the year ending June 2024, 167,600 decisions were made on applications for householder developments, accounting for 51% of all decisions, down from 55% of all decisions made in the year ending June 2023. Authorities granted 89% of these applications and decided 92% within eight weeks or the agreed time.
Major public service infrastructure development decisions
Since August 2021, major public service infrastructure developments broadly defined as major developments for schools, hospitals and criminal justice accommodation have been subject to an accelerated decision-making timetable.
Separate figures on major public service infrastructure development decisions have been collected on the quarterly PS2 return with effect from October 2021. During April to June 2024 there were 23 decisions, of which 22 were granted and 20 were decided in time (Live Table MJPSI, PS2 Dashboard). Please note that figures are not collected on the CPS1/2 return and so don’t include education developments by county councils.
Permission in Principle/Technical Details consent decisions
Since April 2017, local planning authorities have had the ability to grant permission in principle (PiP) to sites which have been entered on their brownfield land registers. Where sites have a grant of permission in principle, applicants have been able to submit an application for Technical Details Consent (TDC) for development on these sites. In addition, since June 2018, it has also been possible to make an application for PiP for minor housingled development as a separate application, independently of the brownfield register. Where a site has been granted PiP following an application, it is possible to apply for a TDC.
Figures on PiP/TDC decisions have been collected on the quarterly PS2 return from January 2020. During April to June 2024, local planning authorities reported 118 PiP (minor housing-led developments) decisions, 26 TDC (minor housing-led developments) decisions and 1 TDC (major developments) decisions.
The totals for the previous quarters have been similar although there has been a slow upward trend since 2020, when there were about 60 PiP decisions per quarter (Live Table PiP/TDC1, PS2 dashboard).
Permitted development rights
Planning permission for some types of development has been granted nationally through legislation, and the resulting rights are known as ‘permitted development rights’ (PDRs). For certain permitted development rights, if the legislation is complied with, developments can go ahead without the requirement to notify the local planning authority.
Hence no way of capturing this data exists and these are not accounted for in this report. In other cases, the permitted development right legislation requires an application to the local planning authority to determine whether or not prior approval is required and to determine as appropriate (see the Definitions section of the Technical Notes).
Between April to June 2024, 6,100 applications were reported, of which prior approval was not required for 3,200, permission was granted for 1,600, and 1,300 were refused.
This resulted in an overall acceptance rate[footnote 6] of 79%. Large householder extension accounted for 58% of all PDR applications reported, with 25% relating to All others, 7% relating to Agricultural to residential, and 6% relating to Commercial, Business and service to residential (Live Tables PDR1/PDR2).
In the quarter to June 2024, 900 permitted development right applications were made for changes to residential use, of which 600 (66%) were given the go-ahead without having to go through the full planning process.
Overall during the 41 quarters ending June 2024, district planning authorities reported 336,200 applications for prior approvals for permitted developments.
For 188,200 of them prior approval was not required, 78,700 were granted and 69,300 were refused (Live Table PDR2). n
Housing Targets for London Relaxing the rules on upward extensions NPPF
and Development Management reforms
Account of the Forum meeting on Tuesday 10th September 2024 hosted by Assael Architecture Report by Brian Whiteley of RTPI’s Planning Aid England & Riette Oosthuizen, HTA Design also at www.planninginlondon.com
Discussion items:
1) Housing Targets for London: Another mutant algorithm?
- Michael Bach, London Forum of Amenity Societies
2) What is the potential for upward extensions in London?
- Liam Bolton researcher: ‘Charting the Rooftop Housing Landscape in London’ and Riette Oosthuizen of HTA Design
3) NPPF and Development Management reforms - response to consultation - Andrew Rogers, Association of Consultant Architects - Jessica Graham, Associate Director, Planning at Savills
ATTENDANCE
Meeting held on Tuesday 10th September 2024 and hosted by Assael Architecture
Brian Waters, BWCP, Chairman
Riette Oosterhuizen, HTA Design
Brian Whiteley, RTPI Planning Aid
Felicie Krinkler, Assael
Hannah Brownlie, Assael
Liam Bolton
Daniel Forston, Savills
Andy Rogers, ACA
Michael Bach, London Forum
Lee Mallett, Urbik & PiL
Andrew Catto, AC Architects
Patrick Iblis, ACA and ibla.co.uk
Robert Wilson, architect
Gary Hoban, Hoban Design
Ben Fyfe-Williams, Hoban Design
Richard Claridge,
Deon Lombard, architect
Tatiana von Preusson, vPPR Architects
Edward Carter. Triangle Projects
Peter Eversden, London Forum
A Mortimer, RM_A
Jonathan Woodcock, Composition Design
Apologies: Judith Ryser
Graham Bowie
Mark Willingale
Housing Targets for London: Another mutant algorithm?
Michael Bach, London Forum of Amenity Societies
Michael Bach (MB) outlined his past experience as a Civil Servant working on drafting the former national Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 on Housing (published in 2000) and since 2005 working with the London Forum which has helped shape policy through its involvement since in every Examination of the London Plan.
2. His view is that the new standard method for housing targets at Chapter 4 in the July 2024 draft NPPF will not work in/for London. London’s targets are not a matter for Government anyway – they are the duty of the Mayor under the Greater London Authority Act, 1999. The Government can only direct a review of the targets if it disagrees.
3. National housing targets are a relatively new concept – mainly stemming from the competing national political parties’ manifestos since 2017. Targets for London were first explored by the former London Planning Advisory Committee in the mid-1990s1. Work on London Plans since 2004 has resulted in housing targets for individual Boroughs, whose work on preparation of their Local Plans has in turn fed back into the London Plan’s overall housing targets for the capital.
4. London Plan housing targets (net additional homes pa) have steadily risen through every iteration:
• 2004: 23,000
• 2008: 30,500
• 2011: 32,210
• 2015: 42,389
• 2021 52,287 [reduced from 64,935
after Panel Report]
Each time, housing target figures have been derived by:
• analysis of housing need at the strategic level in London in a Strategic Housing Market Analysis (SHMA) and
• of capacity via detailed individual local Boroughlevel assessments of potential housing capacity upto 15 years ahead which have fed into a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) for London as a whole.
Reconciliation and reallocations by the Mayor’s planning team in collaboration with the Boroughs result in their individual London Plan targets.
5. A national standard approach to define housing need across England was prepared by the previous Government during 2020. It gave strong emphasis on growth in London and South East. Political pressure from the South East resulted in figures being released in December 2020 which proposed a 35 per cent uplift in housing growth for London & 19 other cities. Commentary at the time suggested this was an arbitrary/political assessment, rather than a firmly technical one.
6. The present Government’s Manifesto set a housing target of 1.5 million new homes over its first five years in office – i.e. a proposed housing target of 300,000 new homes pa. The draft NPPF’s new Standard Method: has resulted in a revised, increased national target of 370,000 new homes pa. It sets a target for London of around 81,000 new homes pa, with Boroughs expected to use the new Standard Method to assess their individual need figures.
7. Particular concerns for London with the new Standard Method include:
a.Existing housing stock replacement is assumed to be 0.8 per cent pa (previously it was 0.5 per cent). This is unrealistic in areas with a high per cent of stock more than 100 years old, with very few sites for new housing development, an often high coverage of conservation areas, and with historically low activity from developers.
b. Affordability: London’s house prices are now at historically high levels and incomes have not kept pace with these. The n assumption that more homes will result in lower prices is detached from reality. Developers dictate pace of housing development.
c. Skewed Nature of the Results: using the standard method has resulted in much-increased housing targets for central/inner London Boroughs where new housing development opportunities are at their most limited, yet with a corresponding large “reduction” (i.e. compared to the previous Government’s 2020 targets) for many outer London Boroughs.
The only caveat here is that proposed “transitional arrangements” mean Boroughs can continue to use London Plan 2021 targets until March 2026.
Discussion points raised after this presentation included:
1. MB expressed his view that how housing markets work in inner/central London are not compatible with using a standard methodology which is to be applied across the rest of the country. What may work where there is no shortage of potential sites is totally inappropriate/divorced from reality of the inner/central London housing markets. Theory base on perfect markets cannot work in such a setting with so many externalities.
2.So many sites in London are small, often `backlan d` sites below 0.25 ha in size and therefore not included in SHLAAs, yet can make an important contribution to meeting local housing needs.
3. Confusion is caused by the Government’s housing need figures being taken to mean these are targets. They are really a starting point for exploring local needs and housing capacities.
4. The discussion also touched on the challenges of defining and accommodating small sites in brownfield registers, particularly in London, where the size limit for affordable housing contributions differs from the national standard due to higher densities and property values.
Charting the potential for rooftop housing in London
Dr. Liam Bolton
As part of his PhD studies at The Bartlett, UCL, Liam Bolton (LB) has recently completed an investigation1 into the rooftop housing landscape in London. His aim was partly to explore a more sustainable housing source. It is a complex issue with the Importance of context and the pre-existing (host) building – in terms of structural foundations, air rights, rights to light, density and architectural design - all being key factors in determining whether rooftop housing provision was realistic.
2. There is a lack of data in London on the potential for rooftop housing provision. LB sought to improve understanding around rooftop housing by providing an analysis of the London townscape between 2008/09 and 2018/19 and by exploring techniques for mapping and measuring it.
3. His findings were that there has been an increasing trend for rooftop housing development across London:
4. The distribution of rooftop housing developments is mapped and there were very high concentrations in some areas such as Clapham, Fulham and Hackney.
5. Whilst such schemes have slowed in inner & central London, they seem to be picking up in outer London. 96 per cent of extensions have been onestorey; 56 per cent have been extensions to existing residential buildings. Multi-storey extensions have been seen in inner/central London and outer London and mostly on more modular, modern buildings which can accommodate the additional floor weight.
Riette Oosthuizen, HTA Design
1. Riette gave a further example from her study findings in Camden in 2016 where flat roofs were estimated to potentially offer some 2,000 additional new homes in the borough. By extending their working assumptions, they estimated London as a whole might offer potential for an additional 180,000 new homes through roof extensions.
2. An important issue is that extensions proposed taking a building to over 11 storeys in height will need a sprinkler fire system fitted and if over 18 storeys, a second means of escape staircase will be required.
Discussion points raised after this presentation included: a. Retrofitting, extending and re-purposing existing modern modular office buildings are probably the best opportunities to provide additional resi-
dential accommodation at roof level in London.
b. GPDO changes have made these types of scheme more possible.
c. There are multifaceted challenges and considera-
tions with extending upwards, involving addressing technical complexities such as floor to ceiling heights and delivery models, as well as working with existing residents to try to ensure their “buy in”.
ABOVE:
NPPF and Development Management reformsresponse to consultation
Daniel Formston, from Savills Planning Team
Daniel Formston (DF) outlined the key aspects in the Government’s revised NPPF and the underlying policy approach. The new Government is aiming to build 1.5 m new homes over the next five years – an annual rate of 300 k pa. To encourage this it is looking at policy changes rather than legislative ones – to avoid longer delays in bringing about change.
2. Initial steps being taken as a result to speed up housing delivery include:
a) a common methodology for setting local housing targets;
b) speeding up the existing Local Plans system;
c) encouraging more cross-boundary strategic level planning;
d) strengthening the presumption in favour of development;
e) still putting brownfield development first but reviewing Green Belts and introducing the “Grey Belt” concept;
f) proposing a new generation of New Towns together with urban extensions and regeneration; plus g) more resourcing for local planning authorities in the form of funding for 300 additional posts.
3. Ministerial decisions (e.g. on new solar farms) and guidance to the Planning Inspectorate have likewise been speeded up and delivered within the new Government’s first 100 days, whilst it intends to ensure that the revised NPPF published on 30th July will be finalised after public consultations and brought into effect before the end of this year. The Government is also to review compulsory purchase compensation powers with a view to obtaining fairer compensation from the grant of planning permission.
4. DF ended by noting the uphill task facing the Government in its aim to speed up housing delivery. Latest data compiled by Savills gives this picture with housing starts having dropped to around 200k per annum.
DF thought a number of contributary factors have led to this position, including: • the impact of Covid19; • the preparation of Local Plans having been slowed due to a series of planning changes proposed towards the end of the previous Government, which created uncertainty and resulted in fewer planning applications coming forward as a consequence; and • interest rate changes.
Andrew Rogers, Association of Consultant Architects
Andrew Rogers briefly outlined what the ACA sees as priorities for the new Government:
a. to fund more staff at local planning authorities to help bring forward Local Plans more quickly and speed up planning control decisions;
b. make outline planning permission more important so that land use principles are addressed via that route, with planners being less involved with technical aspects of a proposed development (flood risk, biodiversity, etc);
c. greater distinction between what are construction details (Building Regulations, etc) and land use planning issues; and
d. to make planning more generally orientated without having to address multiple technical issues such as environmental detail, viability, affordability, etc.”
Discussion points raised after this presentation included:
1. General concern was voiced about how technical planning has become, with even less complex applications still requiring quite complicated associated environmental and other appraisals – all of which slow the development management process.
2. As New Towns are quite long-term projects, they probably benefit from having a development corporation to steer their progress. Whether a Labour Government would find that acceptable is not clear.
n
Date of next meeting
Monday 9th December 2024 (14.00-17.30pm) at London Councils, 4th Floor, 12 Arthur Street, London EC4R 9AB
Please email editor@planninginlondon.com if you would like to come
ACA’s manifesto for mending planning
For many years now the ACA (Association of Consultant Architects) has been consulted by government and has consulted its members in relation to their experience of the planning system. The ACA first produced a planning manifesto around 2000 and many of its suggestions have now been adopted. But not all. The current manifesto proposes the following changes.
KEY POINTS
CAN BE MENDED
• Three levels of development should be considered: Outline, Full and Approved for construction
• Compliance could be certified by an ‘Approved Agent’ who would also confirm compliance on completion of development
• All objective, measurable issues should be removed from planning to building regulation control and simply require compliance
• Approved Agents or planning authority officers would have authority to assess the impacts of proposals: only where these may harm other owners would they be obliged to follow a consultation procedure. Application must be made to the local planning authority for determination
• Only major strategic decisions and clearly non-compliant applications should be put before elected members
• Local development plans should not be allowed to duplicate matters covered by other legislation
• The General Permitted Development Order should be simplified and allowed to deal only with measurable impacts, not detailed dimensional criteria
We believe these proposals can change the planning system from a negative to a positive one, releasing skills and resources for a new injection of vision.
“An essential travelling companion for those in the FAC-1 team, with Professor Mosey as your expert tour guide.” — Julian Bailey, partner at Jones Day and author of Construction Law (3rd edition)
“… provides excellent guidance to support the effective use of FAC-1.” — Alison Nicholl, head of Constructing Excellence
“… enables all parties to a project or programme of works to understand their roles and responsibilities in creating an alliance capable of delivering safe, quality and value-formoney project outcomes.” — Rebecca Rees, partner at Trowers & Hamlins
“An essential catalyst in helping clients and industry supply chains actively work together to deliver the new ways of working that are required to unlock the vision of a social and productivity revolution that our industry needs.” — Terry Stocks MBE FICE, director at Faithful+Gould
“The best friend of everyone, in every sector of the construction industry, who wants to make a real difference.” — John P. Welch FRICS, Deputy Director of Construction, Crown Commercial Service
Dr David Mosey CBE is a professor at the King’s College London Centre of Construction Law & Dispute Resolution and was formerly head of the projects and construction department at law firm Trowers & Hamlins. He is the principal author of the FAC-1 Framework Alliance Contract and has advised on the procurement of collaborative projects and programmes of work for more than twenty years. David was appointed by the UK government in 2021 to lead an independent review of public sector construction frameworks. His recommendations for improving value, improving safety, managing risk and achieving net zero carbon are set out in ‘Constructing the Gold Standard’ and have been widely endorsed by both government and industry. David received the 2021 TECSA Clare Edwards Award for ‘professional excellence and an outstanding contribution to the legal profession’ and was awarded a CBE in the 2023 New Year honours list for ‘services to the construction industry’.
A constipated planning system ROGERS
Regular PiL readers who make planning applications might remember my column complaining about the ever-increasing demands of the validation police in many local planning authorities.
Now - at last - the government seems to have realised that the system is too complex and cumbersome to deliver housing and other benefits in a timely manner, partly due to the excessive nature of the multitudinous information demanded when applications are submitted.
Planning magazine recently reported that the new chancellor, speaking at Labour’s party conference, vowed to continue “ripping out blockages in the planning system”.
And many others, like Catriona Riddell on Have We Got Planning News for You (“we need a fundamental rethink about how we resource planning…take out all the crap that’s been added onto planning…that shouldn’t be there”), and Debbie Marriage of the RTPI’s Planning Consultants Network (“it is a long held principle the planning system should not be used to enforce controls covered by other regulatory and legislative regimes”), have highlighted the unreasonable and excessive demands that now exist and are blocking up the system.
Even the NPPF (in both its current and proposed revised version) at paragraph 194 states “The focus of planning policies and decisions should be on whether proposed development is an acceptable use of land, rather than the control of processes or emissions…Planning decisions should assume that these regimes will operate effectively.” Today this principle is widely ignored by local planning authorities and their case officers who insist on the submission of (often irrelevant) data and extraneous or unrelated information - that is not included in the planning authority’s statutory Local List of application requirements - before an application can be considered.
Examples of unreasonable requirements before the consideration of an application that I gave in my previous column, referred to above, included the provision of a flood risk assessment for a dormer roof extension in Ealing, provision of elevations for a simple change of use, submission of detailed drawings showing internal walls, etc, for a
“... take out all the crap that’s been added onto planning…that shouldn’t be there”
demolition application, and adding a north point to a drawing showing elevations. Since then the situation has worsened and applicants have been required to provide a fire statement when submitting an application for a new hardstanding, to carry out three detailed emergence surveys to establish whether bats exist on site prior to issuing a planning permission, and to submit full drainage details (size/design of the soakaways, invert levels, depth of underground pipes, catchpit specifications, etc) for the discharge of a precommencement condition.
Many planning officers don’t understand that their colleagues in ecology, drainage, highways, heritage, or whatever section are simply advisors: it is the decision-maker’s duty to decide whether the demands of other departments are both relevant to land-use planning and properly applicable at the planning application stage to the proposal being considered. Obviously compliance with rules and legislation during construction will be required, but the planning system is constipated because so many other requirements have been loaded onto it unnecessarily.
There are several ways that, given the will and the knowledge, this can be rectified. First, consider using the Planning in Principle application route. This is similar to an old-school Outline application: a site plan, use specification and indicative layout are all that is required to obtain permission for the development of any site. The local planning authority should not unreasonably require further information, which has to be included in a subsequent technical planning submission.
Second, whether the local authority’s Local List of planning information requirements is proportionate and relevant to the application needs to be checked. Each list must identify the driver for every item included - and these should be statutory requirements, policies in the NPPF or development plan, or guidance on the implementation of adopted policy. In addition the Local List must be reviewed at least every two years and if it’s out
of date it cannot be enforced. Similarly, the local planning authority should not require information that is not specified by the regulations: in 2023 a council incorrectly demanded an ecology statement with updated elevations and floor plans before it would validate a prior approval permitted development for conversion - such information is not required before validation, so approval became automatic when the period for determination expired and this was confirmed on appeal.
Third, consider an appeal if time allows and the issue is clear. When a local planning authority imposed a technical condition on a permission that exceeded the current Building Regulation standard for residential vehicle charging points, an appeal inspector ruled that planning authorities should not duplicate the function of other regulatory bodies and granted permission. Similarly, when an application for the retrospective approval of a new shopfront was not determined by a local authority that requested a photograph and plans, the inspector determined that these requirements were both unreasonable and not proportionate, giving approval with an award of costs.
In January the government issued a written ministerial statement demanding that Local Plans should not go beyond the Building Regulations in setting energy efficiency targets and that policies should be applied flexibly “where the applicant can demonstrate that meeting the higher standards is not technically feasible”. It would be very helpful if this advice was expanded to include all technical and construction regulation issues so that land-use planning application decisions and conditions on approval which place unjustifiable and disproportionate burdens on applicants, or fail a test of reasonableness, could be removed and the system released from these obstructions. Not only would this speed up the system, but it would make it much healthier. n
constipation n. deprivation of vigour or useful action.
obstacle n. anything that stands in the way of or hinders progress laxative adj. giving freedom - Chambers Dictionary
Andy Rogers is a planning consultant and former director in architects
The Manser Practice
20 November 2024, 155 Bishopsgate, London
The largest one-day event for senior leaders planning and funding the strategic future of housing
Applying lessons from the 昀nal Grenfell Inquiry report
Speakers include:
Bernadette Conroy Chair Regulator of Social Housing
Florence Eshalomi Chair, Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, MP for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green
Fiona FletcherSmith Group chief executive L&Q and chair, G15
Implications of Labour Party announcements for strategic plans Impact of Autumn Budget on sector risk and 昀nance Marcus Ralling Interim chief
Paul Johnson Director Institute of Fiscal Studies Nicholas Watt
Bronwen Rapley Chair Homes for the North
socialhousing.co.uk/shac For sponsorship opportunities contact andy.stevens@oceanmedia.co.uk
PiL reader o昀er: 20% o昀 with discount code PIL20 at checkout * *This o昀er is valid for new bookings only. The discount cannot be used in conjunction with any other o昀er.
¡¡ PILLO! PILLO!
Peter’s
passion for architecture
I’ve been standing shivering outside the birthplace of the modern City of London, when out of nowhere pops Peter Rees. We'd arranged to meet beneath the Gherkin in the heart of the Square Mile, the financial district that is the powerhouse of the UK economy. He's like a tall Rob Brydon, all irrepressible Welsh charm and gushing enthusiasm for his specialist subject, the skyscrapers of the City.
For nearly 30 years, Rees was the man who ran planning here, overseeing the transformation of the area from a patchwork of fusty low-rise historical buildings into what is now a thrusting cluster of memorable high-rises: the Cheesegrater, the Walkie Talkie, the Can of Ham, 22 Bishopsgate (the tallest at 278m) and, of course, the mould-breaking Gherkin (the shortest, at 180m).
We have been taking a windswept walking tour of all the EC district's notable high-rises, but now we retreat to the New Moon pub in nearby Leadenhall Market. Over pints of bitter, Rees regales me with tale after tale of his passion for the architecture of the City, how he loves the old as much as the new, how his favourite architect is not Richard Rogers or Norman Foster, but Nicholas Hawksmoor, whose apotheosis is the stout St Mary Woolnoth church overlooking Bank tube station, and how really good architecture is not just about creating something beautiful but a timeless mechanism to ensure a place serves its purpose well. – Patrick Jenkins , Deputy Editor, Financial Times
The mystery of affordability appraisals
Welcome to Planet Planning. Oxford City’s Local Plan 2040 has been rejected for zoning 1,322 new homes, rather than the 762 deemed sufficient. In Manchester, mystery remains over a decision to pass plans for 2,388 private flats, despite policy demanding 20% ‘affordable’… Welcome to Planet Earth. Oxford planners are furious. My brain froze trying to grasp why those Manchester flats are viable, given the £72m negative land value. “Feel free to explain,” I pleaded (here) last month. A director of a big listed residential developer has gently suggested developers’ internal calculations can vary greatly from official appraisals used to determine affordability. OK, fine.
But profits can be magicked up from thin air using official RICS guidance, he says. “The method of using 100% finance in viability [under the guise of net present value] and then a profit on all cost is assessed, is clearly double dipping, as 100% debt doesn’t exist. Proper assessed late-stage review would resolve this game fairly. But housebuilders dodge this argument by using return on GDV as their metric.”
Nope. No idea what this means. But those battling for more affordable need to figure this out. – Peter Bill in Property Week, Peter is the author of Planet Property and Broken Homes
Permissions sitting on a shelf
“It's a bit perverse that there are planning permissions out there for affordable housing, and even Registered Housing Providers won't take up the housing and deliver it. That needs to be sorted: something is wrong.
“It’s quite heartbreaking to see the permissions sitting there on a shelf not able to come forward.
“If this could be addressed, it would free up significant amounts of affordable housing and quickly. We work so hard to get these permissions and so do the councils.” – Grant Leggett, Boyer
Eye Eye
In Lambeth, members unanimously allowed the London Eye to stay indefinitely on the South Bank. The original permission was temporary, extended to 25 years in 2003.
£14bn down the holes
Potholes on British roads cost the economy more than £14 billion a year in repair costs, accidents, driver delays and higher emissions, according to
new estimates.
In one of the first attempts to break down the economic impact of road damage, the Centre for Economics and Business Research said that the more than one million potholes cost the UK economy £14.4 billion a year. – Richard Fletcher, The Times business editor
ALDI happy to invest in planning
“Obtaining planning consent for new Aldi schemes can take us over twelve months due to underresourcing in local authorities. We will happily invest in the application process to help speed that up. “A new Aldi store is also a significant job creator in local communities, delivering some of the top salary levels in retail.”
George Brown railed against what he perceived to be local authorities holding a preference towards warehouse and industrial schemes, which he argued generate fewer jobs than supermarkets. Aldi opened its 1,000th store in the UK last year and announced plans to open 500 more, as it seeks to close the gap on the likes of Tesco and Sainsbury’s. – George Brown is Aldi’s national property director – as seen in PW n
St Mary Woolnoth church
Urban sustainability is a growing priority, and a new project in Chelsea is leading the way explains Edward Williams
A community-based ground source heat pump network
A groundbreaking feasibility study is underway to explore a community heat network in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. The project aims to provide residents with carbon-free heating and cooling through advanced ground source heat pump technology and a community network. The initiative is a collaboration between the Sydney Street and District Residents' Association, Cagni Williams Associates (Architects and Urban Designers), Genius Energy Lab (Ground Source Heat Pump System Design), and Kensa Utilities (Ambient Loop Network Installation and Funding). Fully funded by the Community Energy Fund, it not only promises to transform the local community but also offers a model for urban sustainability across the UK.
The Partnership: Combining Expertise for a Green Future
The genesis of this pioneering project began with a successful collaboration between Cagni Williams and Genius Energy Lab on a project in the West Midlands, where Genius Energy Lab demonstrated the practicality and economic viability of these systems. Building on this partnership and a shared commitment to sustainable urban development, the nascent project team has moved their focus to London, where the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) is eager to support a green transition.
The project’s vision of an urban renaissance featuring tree planting, street improvements, electric charging points, rooftop gardens, and a community-based ground source heat pump network was solidified in discussions between Cagni Williams Associates and local councillors To bring it to life, the team partnered with Kensa Utilities, a leader in ambient ground loop systems and heat pump manufacturing in the UK. Together with Cagni Williams Associates' expertise in urban design and landscaping, and Genius Energy Lab’s experience, this collaboration is set to deliver a transformative project.
Feasibility Study: Assessing the Potential for a Sustainable Heat Network
The feasibility study, due for completion by autumn 2024, is crucial for determining the viability of the proposed community heat network. It will assess technical feasibility, financial models, capital costs, ongoing costs for residents, and funding sources. A key aspect of the study is a robust community engagement program to keep residents informed and involved throughout the process.
The project’s successful securing of £40,000 from the Community Energy Fund highlights its well-organized and detailed proposal. This funding supports the professional team,
each contributing specialized expertise. The study will assess technical details and create a financial model to determine resident costs and the required participation for success. By the study's end, the team aims to establish a clear path forward, potentially setting a model for other urban areas in the UK.
Community and Environmental Impact: A Blueprint for Urban Decarbonisation
The proposed community heat network offers significant benefits to residents in the study area, including Sydney Street, Guthrie Street, Cale Street, and nearby roads. The project aims to provide carbon-free heating and cooling to most households in this dense urban environment, where traditional air source heat pumps are not feasible due to noise, space, and visual concerns. The network is expected to serve about 75% of the area’s dwellings, significantly reducing local greenhouse gas emissions and supporting the UK’s decarbonisation goals.
London
Edward Williams is cofounder of Cagni Williams Associates, architects
The Sydney Street proposal
Residents will enjoy both immediate and long-term benefits. In the short term, they’ll gain access to reliable, sustainable heating and cooling, with potential cost savings compared to traditional systems. Long-term, their participation will help reduce local carbon emissions, supporting community climate action.
The project also serves as a model for similar initiatives across the UK, allowing other communities to replicate its success.
Community engagement has been central to the project from the start. The Sydney Street and District Residents' Association (SSDRA), representing over 200 households, has actively contributed to planning and development. Through town hall meetings, newsletters, and a dedicated website, the project team keeps residents informed and invites feedback. This collaborative approach builds trust and fosters a sense of ownership, crucial for the project’s long-term success.
Innovative Technology: The Ambient Loop Network and its Potential
At the core of this project is the ambient loop network, a costeffective and sustainable alternative to traditional heat systems. It includes ground source heat pumps in each home and boreholes in the public highway that collect and dissipate heat. The heat pump transfers heat from the ground to the home, similar to how a refrigerator moves heat, and can also provide cooling, increasing its efficiency and utility.
The ambient loop network is a lower-cost, simpler alternative to high-temperature systems, which require central plant buildings, expensive insulated pipes, and extensive maintenance. This passive system eliminates the need for central plant and requires minimal upkeep, making it ideal for dense urban areas like Chelsea, where space and infrastructure are limited.
The success of a similar system in in the village of Stythians, Cornwall, offers a strong proof of concept for this project. In Stythians, the ambient loop network has effectively reduced carbon emissions while providing sustainable heating and cooling to the community. By adapting this technology to the specific challenges of an inner city location the project team is pioneering a new approach to urban sustainability with potentially widereaching impacts.
>>>
Challenges, Risks, and Mitigation Strategies
Like any ambitious project the community heat network project faces challenges, including securing resident participation, as it requires upfront costs and long-term connection commitments. To overcome this, the project team is running a community engagement campaign, highlighting benefits and exploring funding options like the UK government's boiler upgrade scheme. Kensa Utilities, accredited with the Heat Trust, will also ensure compliance with the Energy Act 2023 and future Ofgem regulations, providing consumer protection.
A key challenge is the technical feasibility of installing boreholes in a densely populated urban area. The project must avoid
existing underground services and minimise traffic disruption, requiring coordination with local authorities and utility companies. The team is using advanced radar scanning to locate underground services and working with the RBKC highways authority to secure permissions and routes..
The project's success also depends on the risk tolerance of potential funders, given the technical and financial uncertainties. To mitigate these risks, the team is completing a detailed design phase to clarify costs and feasibility. And securing additional government support will help make the investment more attractive to funders.
Future Prospects: Scaling Up for National Impact
If the feasibility study confirms the viability of the community heat network, next steps include detailed design work and applying for additional funding to cover capital costs. The project’s long-term goals are ambitious, with the potential to expand this model across the UK, decarbonising our housing stock (in 2021, 28 million homes) with heating accounting for 18% of UK greenhouse gas emissions.
This project’s impact reaches beyond west London, offering a scalable model for community heat networks that could play a key role in the UK's low-carbon transition. Its success could reshape urban planning nationwide, demonstrating how innovative technology and community collaboration can deliver major environmental and social benefits.
The project team is dedicated to sharing their insights, making the final report publicly available and engaging in public speaking and writing. This knowledge-sharing ensures the project’s benefits extend beyond London to other communities facing similar challenges.
Conclusion: A Vision for a Sustainable Urban Future
The community heat network project in London is a pioneering effort in urban sustainability. By integrating advanced technology with community and local authority support, it aims to significantly reduce carbon emissions and set a new benchmark for UK urban planning. As the project progresses, it stands as a model for future sustainable cities, with potential to inspire a nationwide shift in heating and cooling systems, contributing to long-term urban resilience. n
Edward Williams is an architect and co-founder of Cagni Williams Associates, a London based architectural practice that he runs with his wife and partner, Laura Carrara-Cagni. With over 30 years of experience in the field, Edward has been instrumental in delivering high-profile, sustainable projects both in the UK and internationally. Before establishing his own practice in 2011, Edward spent nearly two decades at Hopkins Architects, where he contributed to iconic projects such as Glyndebourne Opera House and the Macmillan Cancer Centre at University College London Hospitals. He is also deeply involved in professional organisations, having served as the Honorary Librarian and a Council Member of the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), and continues to support architectural education and the preservation of architectural heritage through his work with the British Architectural Library Trust.
Planning reform is welcome and it is more important than ever to engage supporters of housebuilding to demonstrate that building more homes is popular, says Millie Dodd
Demonstrating that building homes is popular
Most people in the housing sector know that the planning system needs serious reform to deliver the housing we desperately need. The Labour government is consulting on making the changes the industry has been calling for, with major plans for new towns and delivering 370,000 homes per year, we have the chance to make delivering more homes a reality. However, to ensure that thousands more homes are built, we need to show that housing is popular.
Historically the housing debate has been dominated by the vocal minority who do not want to see more housing built in their area. People who object to new housing typically already own their own homes and have the time to involve themselves in a complex planning process to protect what they perceive to be at risk.
The silent majority of people who support building more homes, the younger generation and those who are directly affected by the housing crisis, are often not reached in the traditional planning process. Just Build Homes is out to change this.
By simplifying a complex planning system, Just Build Homes is connecting supporters of housebuilding with the planning process to help get the homes we need approved and built, providing decision-makers with an evidence base of genuine local people who are in need of housing.
When you speak to supporters of housebuilding, they often share their personal experiences of the housing crisis. The sad truth is that everyone knows someone who is affected by the lack of housing in this country. Parents talk about still having their 30-year-old children still living at home, and people who managed to get on the housing ladder talk about how difficult it was for them, and how their friends are still struggling.
At Just Build Homes, we hear lots of stories about people who aspire to be homeowners but feel this dream is no longer realistic. This is now an cross-generational issue: it is not just the younger generation supporting new homes but people of all ages.
We, in the housing sector, generally welcome the government’s ambition to build thousands of much-needed new homes, but when the wave of campaigning against new towns and new development begins, we must demonstrate that housing is popular. Not just within the industry, but by amplifying the voices of those people who will gain the most from building more homes - those directly affected by the housing crisis.
After the latest planning National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) consultation was announced, Just Build Homes asked residents in Southeast England, (excluding London) what they thought of building more homes. This area has the highest concentration of greenbelt land and the greatest demand for housing. We found that over half were supportive of new towns but only a quarter were in favour of building
on greenfield sites: a prerequisite for the Government achieving its’ ambitious housing targets. Nearly 60% of people living in the greenbelt in the South East, however, agreed with introducing compulsory housebuilding targets for Councils but threequarters did not support releasing more greenbelt land for development.
We then asked our nationwide Just Build Homes community, who are mostly under 45 and predominantly renters or living with family and friends, the same questions about their views on housing. Their support for the Government’s policy on housing was much higher. Over three-quarters supported building new towns and nearly two-thirds were happy for new homes to be built on greenbelt sites. These people overwhelmingly support compulsory housing targets with 80% agreeing that the Government should set councils targets to build more homes. These are the people that the industry needs to engage to get the housing we need approved and built.
We recently launched a campaign, to connect this silent majority of housebuilding with the political decision-makers, to demonstrate support for the Government's plans to deliver 370,000 homes per year. To date we have enabled hundreds of people to submit an official response to the official NPPF consultation, using our Just Build Homes bespoke digital tools and raising awareness of the consultation amongst supportive audiences.
Just Build Homes has a proven track record of connecting supporters of housebuilding with individual schemes improving the chances of securing planning permission, and has worked on over 100 projects nationwide. Our most recent approval highlighted the importance of engaging supporters of housebuilding. Working with Long Term Land, eighty-three muchneeded affordable homes were approved in East Cambridgeshire. Supporters used Just Build Homes to share their personal reasons why they wanted the new homes to go ahead, as shown by Kerrie, a 42-year-old council renter from Littleport:
“People in our community are stuck in unsuitable living conditions due to the housing shortage. It's clear we need more affordable homes to keep families together and enable young people to start their own lives near their loved ones”.
Planning reform is welcome, but it will not be easy. It is more important than ever to engage supporters of housebuilding to demonstrate to decision-makers that building more homes is popular, or else we will not get the changes that the industry needs. n
Millie Dodd is Senior Communications Manager, Just Build Homes
Lars Christian offers a possible strategy to ease the 2020s housing trap of London and the nations
Target the over 55s to ease the housing crisis
This article argues that a good, effective and sustainable way to ease the 2020s housing trap, is to build up to two million homes for the +55 year olds throughout England. Not especially targeting the 15 per cent richest, nor for the 15 per cent poorest, but targeting the remaining two thirds 55+ year old mid-income households. The 2020s housing trap is not unique to the four nations of the UK.
A similar situation is found in several other countries; including countries where owner occupied detached, semi-detached and/or row houses are the predominant housing type; including the Netherlands, Ireland, Canada, Australia. See also articles in PiL 115/2020 and 105/2018.My proposal, is to build up to one million council and housing association apartments for the +55 year olds, 9 in 10 with one bedroom, during the next 10-15 years. To allow for a significant proportion of the +55 single households to leave their larger council/housing association or privately rented homes. To settle in bespoke apartment complexes reserved for the +55s. With the proposed number of public housing units built annually, equal to 2-3 times as many public housing units built annually c1997-2010.
Similarly, up to one million +55 year old apartments, to be built by the private sector. Half on land compulsory purchased by the local authority. All available as shared or outright freehold ownership. All forever without stamp duty.
All complexes will have a large common entrance hall, common garden, common rooftop terrace, for all to meet and enjoy. Where the entrance hall contains a kitchenette, tables and chairs; for all residents to enjoy at their discretion. For morning coffee or bring-your-own/shared breakfast or lunch. Once or
Four phenomena that contributed to the 2020s housing crisis include, some owner occupiers also own buy-to-rent properties. Generous pensions for the middle classes give them greater spending power in the housing market. Right-to-buy diminished social housing stock and this is often rented out. A significant number of single adults and pensioners living in family-sized homes. There isn’t enough bespoke housing for the single elderly
twice a week shared lunches or dinners. And/or morning, afternoon or evening weekly social events or activities. All to be organised and prepared by the residents themselves.
For both the public and private apartments, the council tax will typically come with a 50 per cent discount for single +55 year old households. To reflect that society and the public gain many times over. When as many as possible of the +55s live in
RIGHT:
Hoptons Almshouses near Blackfriars Bridge, Southwark
Lars Christian is an urbanist and lecturer
smaller apartments. Rather than occupy larger family apartments, homes or houses; originally and primarily designed and built for families with pre- or school age children to occupy.
The council/housing association apartments, will be built over 10-15 years, proportionally throughout most local authorities, with up to a quarter in the thirty larger urban areas, and up to a quarter throughout all London boroughs. For the thirty largest cities, this equals to providing on average 6-7 complexes of 75125 apartments each annually, by 4-6 housing associations and 12 by the council. The other half, built throughout the remaining 200 smaller (metropolitan) authorities, an average 2-3 complexes of 75-100 apartments each annually.
In London, 33 authorities are to build on average 150-250 complexes of 75-125 homes annually for 10-15 years, or 15-20k apartments annually. This equals to 3-5 complexes annually in each of the smaller 16 boroughs, e.g on average 2-4 by housing associations and one by the borough. And 7-9 complexes in in each of the 16 larger boroughs annually, e.g on average half a dozen by housing associations and 2-3 by the borough.*
There were 1½ million people +60 or 17 per cent in London in 2020, against 24½ per cent in the rest of England. Amounting to maybe three quarter million households, ¼–⅓mn one person, and half a million two people or more.
If one in ten of +60 households over a 1015 year period choose to live in 55+ year old communities, that is about 80k households, in maybe 700-900 communities across London, or 20-30 communities per borough. This would bring the social, cultural, physical & mental health, demographic, ecologic and economic benefits 55+ community housing offers all generations – adult children, inlaws and grandchildren as well.
This example amounts to about half the number argued for in the London paragraph
New Labour revolutionised student housing throughout the UK, to the extent that as many students live in purpose built private student housing as university run student housing (one sixth each). Or about one third of a million units, typically with up to 500 units per building or site – in a thousand or more buildings. About 50 purpose built annually during the last two decades, mostly in or near city centres.
There is plenty of possible land where 55+ housing complexes can be built throughout all metropolitan and all 32 London boroughs. Including car parks, garages, transport, light logistics, light industrial and/or retail parks/land. Where most of present activities can remain on the upper ground floors, with parking on the lower ground floors. With the size of an average apartment equal to the footprint of a row house, but with 4-6 on top of each other, the densities may reach 6-12 times higher.
Everyone deserves to live adequately. The idea of pensioners living alone is a mid to late twentieth century idea. But reaching a point where a majority of single pensioners live alone happened maybe around the turn of the millennium. And is straining the housing supply of the four nations to a breaking point, London included.
The 2020s housing trap is not equal to extraordinary post WW1 or post WW2 times or challenges. But London and the four nations are facing three challenges that need a response: First, single pensioners throughout the western world cannot live as if most still have a partner and children living at home. Second, UK governments throughout the last few decades, failed to prepare for a wave of pensioners, and a wave of single households. And third, lower income pensioners, in need of financial housing support, deserve better than subsidised private market rent.
The 55+ housing communities advocated above are for the 'younger' elderly, mostly moving house in their early or late 60s. Where the housing communities are self supporting. Where the social benefits of having several dozens 55+ year olds within one medium size community – with their different personalities, skills, experiences – is invaluable. For the individuals, the community, the neighbourhood, and the society at large. n
ABOVE:
The Mills Charity, Framlingham, Suffolk Patron’s 2018 Almshouse Association Award
The new government’s pledges on housing growth prompts Carter Jonas to analyse the Green Belt’s composition, purpose and potential to address future housing need, writes David Churchill
Debunking the myths surrounding Green Belt
Throughout the general election campaign, the Green Belt was central to the debate about the housing crisis. The new Labour government has committed to building 1.5 million homes during the next parliament and has pledged to adopt a strategic approach to the use of Green Belt land as part of the delivery solution, including building on poor quality socalled ‘grey belt’ land.
In a new report, Rethinking the Green Belt, national property consultancy Carter Jonas has moved the debate on a stage, by considering what land might be used and how it will be released. The analysis by takes an in-depth look at the subject, determining to what extent land within the Green Belt differs from land outside it; how much of the Green Belt is protected by other (and perhaps more appropriate) designations, and exploring options for using Green Belt land in order to achieve more sustainable patterns of development.
The composition of the Green Belt
The amount of land designated as Green Belt has recently increased: in the two years to April 2023, it rose by 25,443 ha (1.6%), returning Green Belt coverage to 2004 levels.
A closer look reveals that there is not a huge difference in land use when a comparison is made between Green Belt and non-Green Belt areas, suggesting that Green Belt land is not especially unique, as is commonly assumed.
6.8% of Green Belt land has been developed, compared to 9.0% for non-Green Belt land. Of that, the majority is used for transport and hardstanding, such as car parks, paved or tarmacked areas, accounting for 5.2% and 6.1% of Green Belt and non-Green Belt land, respectively. Land developed for buildings accounts for just 1.2% of Green Belt land, and 2.5% of nonGreen Belt land.
Furthermore, while 18.9% of the Green Belt is in the form of forest, open land and water, the proportion of land outside the Green Belt within this classification is only slightly greater, at 20.3%.
These statistics emphasise that the Green Belt is no more than a planning policy tool to be deployed for specific purposes rather that a landscape or ecological designation as some might incorrectly assume, and which might result in markedly different land use data.
The purpose of the Green Belt
The original purposes of the Green Belt were numerous: to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another; assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
David Churchill is a partner at Carter Jonas
RIGHT:
Area of land designated as greenbelt from 2008 to 2003
Although commonly seen as a means of preserving ‘green’ land, the Green Belt was not created with the primary purpose of protecting the natural environment: that role is fulfilled by environmental designations including National Parks, National Landscapes (previously AONBs), SSSIs and Ramsar Sites. Only 21% of all Green Belt land is covered by an environmental designation. This percentage ranges from 38.7% of London’s Green Belt, 33.6% for Bournemouth / Poole and 26.3% for Bristol / Bath, to just 3.8% for Cambridge, 3.6% for York and 2.8% for Stoke on Trent.
Just as environmental protection is not an objective of the Green Belt, neither is recreational use. Land used for outdoor recreation accounts for 5.5% of Green Belt land, ranging from 21.9% of London’s Green Belt to just 3.3% in the North East. There would seem to be clear scope to improve on this.
So, as the Green Belt is increasingly a feature of planning debate and discussion, should its original objectives be reviewed?
The Green Belt is primarily a planning policy tool with the original objective of preventing urban sprawl.
“Priorities for green open spaces are changing. Unsurprisingly, there is mounting pressure to allow more development on Green Belt land in response to the housing crisis. In most cases such developments can generate considerable new recreational space. Consequently, new communities may be better provided for by addressing today’s priorities for open spaces, such as providing for health and wellbeing and biodiversity net gain, as opposed to leaving the land in its current unbuilt state.”
Meeting housing demand
The Labour government has committed to building 1.5 million homes, or 300,000 per annum over five years. Assuming an average plot size of 0.033 hectares (Carter Jonas research), and on the (doubtless erroneous) assumption that all of these homes would be built in the Green Belt, this would only
LEFT:
Percentages of land area designated Green Belt
equate to 3.0% of the current extent of Green Belt. The reality is that any Green Belt ‘land take’ will be far lower, with brownfield and non-Green Belt locations being prioritised. Hence the quantum of land to be removed from the Green Belt is likely to be pretty modest in the overall scheme of things.
Our research shows that housing need can be met without substantial loss to the Green Belt. We are not advocating all new homes being located on the Green Belt but are suggesting that there are strategic benefits in releasing some Green Belt land for housing. For example, it could reduce the number of ‘leapfrogging’ developments - those located further from urban areas than is desirable, which increase residents’ carbon footprints through extensive commutes and impacts on both businesses’ and residents’ proximity to urban centres.”
Carter Jonas’ research shows the extent of Green Belt release required by region if housing stock was increased by 6% (to align with Labour’s 1.5m housebuilding target over the next 5 years, and again provided solely on the Green Belt): in London, a 6% increase in housing stock would require 21.1% of Green Belt land. In contrast, in five regions (South East, North West, North East, East of England, West Midlands, and Yorkshire and the Humber), a 6% increase in housing would equate to less than 3% of Green Belt land being released.
While this modelling is interesting, it is only theoretical. There are several options to address the urgent need for housing, each with its own benefits. We have considered major transport routes running through Green Belt land which present potential for sustainable development and prevent both ‘leapfrogging’ and urban sprawl. This showed considerable potential: for example, no fewer than 60% of the junctions on the A40 fall within the Green Belt. Greater leniency in developing in the Green Belt, particularly around these interchanges, would pave the way for much-needed residential and commercial development, while helping to shorten journey times and reduce congestion. >>>
BELOW:
Percentage of Green Belt and additional hectares of land required
The modest release of land from the Green Belt, perhaps through edge-of-town development or development along major transport arteries is part of this solution. Selecting sites of lower environmental value which are not designated for conservation would ensure that the impact on the natural environment is minimised.
Colin Brown, Head of Planning & Development at Carter Jonas adds, “Building on the existing Green Belt will only ever be part of the solution to building more homes. The Labour manifesto recognised this and proposed the development of new towns (which require long-term planning and substantial upfront investment in infrastructure) alongside urban extensions and regeneration project. Raising the rate of housebuilding is a major challenge and will require a combination of all these approaches.”
Conclusion
At a time of acute housing need, it is vital to look at all measures which unlock land for development. The considered release of some Green Belt land would create the opportunity for sustainable edge-of-town development within close proximity to transport connections and amenities without compromising the high-quality, biodiverse, and environmentally sensitive land.
recent general election campaign and with the new government committed to a strategic approach to the use of the Green Belt as part of a broader strategy to raise the rate of housebuilding, we anticipate a significant shift in thinking over the next five years.
RIGHT:
Have we been here before?
Our cover of issue 89, April 2014
London
The immediate relevance of the debate today provides an opportunity to debunk the myths that have arisen in relation to the Green Belt. These are impinging on the ability of local planning authorities to enable sustainable development.
Housing and economic growth were key policy areas in the
Stagnation or growth? The stark planning choice facing central London
Tony Travers introduces ARUP’s report for the London Property Alliance
Professor Tony Travers is Director, London School of Economics and Political Science
Central London is important for not only the capital itself, but for the whole country. It is a place full of instantly recognisable sights, from the Tower of London and Big Ben to red buses. People who have never been to the city will know it from countless films, books and televised Royal events set in central London. It is a ‘shop window’ for Britain, attracting investors and tourists from around the world.
It is also a remarkable ecosystem of mutually reinforcing economic activity. West End theatres employ actors who work in films, which supports post-production facilities, that attract directors, who spend money on filmmaking, which in turn attracts famous movie actors, who go on to act in the theatre, and so on. The same is true of dozens of other sectors and sub-sectors. It is this agglomeration of overlapping economic activity, and the high productivity levels which are associated with it, which would be impossible to replicate if the same activities were not all co-located in a densely packed city centre.
London Property Alliance
(LPA) brings together the Westminster Property Association (WPA) and City Property Association (CPA) to provide a unified voice for the leading owners, developers, investors and professional advisors of real estate across central London.
Combined we represent over 400 members, ranging from FTSE 100 companies and the Great Estates, to affordable housing providers and boutique architectural practices. We are not-for-profit, and the only property industry body which represents London’s Central Activities Zone (CAZ).
The Alliance delivers informative events, publishes innovative research and represents our members’ interests to politicians and policymakers.
This report notes that the Central Activities Zone and Northern Isle of Dogs (CAZ+) generates 48 per cent of London’s economic output and 41 per cent of its jobs in just over two per cent of its land area. Given that virtually everyone who lives and works in the city centre travels by public transport, bicycle or on foot, this concentrated economic activity is also environmentally benign, as the report also points out.
The economic health of central London is thus of concern not only to the local boroughs, but also to the London Mayor and
Treasury. There are significant opportunities to further increase GDP and employment, but only if the right policies are pursued. Threats to growth include hybrid working, planning decisions and a failure to invest. Although there has been a marked return to the office following the pandemic, it has not fully restored daily employment and travel to 2019 levels. Planning statistics suggest fewer major applications were submitted in 2022 than a decade earlier, particularly in Westminster, although the whole CAZ+ is affected. Investment in transport has become less likely because of unhelpful changes in national Government policy towards London.
There is no doubt that the CAZ+ could accommodate significantly more economic activity and a higher residential population. The report suggests a stark choice for policymakers between a form of stagnation and the possibility of significant growth. The former outcome would be problematic because it would potentially discourage international investment in the UK, driving it to other cities in Europe and beyond. By contrast, a ‘balanced growth’ in floorspace, employment and homes would produce resources not only for the Exchequer but also, through developer contributions, for local councils.
Undoubtedly, the next government will need the tax revenue generated by central London to support its ambitions. It is most unlikely any government will have the resources to increase funding for local government in the coming decade, so the capacity to generate cash via development is an opportunity for the boroughs
>>> to control their own destiny.
It is in both London’s and the nation’s interest that environmentally sustainable growth occurs in the CAZ+. Any suggestion that the existing decision- making structures in central London are impeding rational development would inevitably start to raise questions about the governance of the area. For example, the balance of power between the boroughs and City Hall in London could be changed to reflect the city-wide importance of central London.
Elections at the city-wide and national level mean new policy options can be pursued. This report provides an opportunity to debate the future of the CAZ+ as a place to live and work.
Executive summary
Key results (see table opposite)
• This study explores possible economic futures for London’s Central Activities Zone and Northern Isle of Dogs, hereafter referred to as the CAZ+, using three growth scenarios.
• The CAZ+ punches above its weight, contributing 48% of London’s GVA and 41% of the capital’s jobs, despite occupying just 2.2% of its land area.
• Employment in the CAZ+ has a low and improving level of environmental impact. Greenhouse gas emissions in CAZ+ boroughs reduced by 48% between 2005 and 2021. The City of London has the lowest emissions per job (0.3 tCO2e) of all CAZ+ boroughs, and indeed any local authority in England and Wales; at 2.5 tCO2e per job, the national level is around four times higher than the CAZ+ average.
• The balanced growth scenario supported by flexible planning and growth policies, investment in local infrastructure and business support could lead to substantially more jobs, GVA, homes, borough and mayoral CIL and S106 receipts, compared with the business as usual and checks on growth scenarios.
• By 2045, balanced growth would deliver an additional 407,200 jobs*, £101bn annual GVA, 50,700 homes and a cumulative £4.3bn borough and mayoral CIL and S106 contributions, when compared with 2023.
*Additional jobs estimated in this study are gross jobs, and do not consider additionality (e.g. leakage, displacement or multiplier effects).
**Approximative values, based on Gerald Eve analysis of historic Borough and Mayoral CIL and S106 contributions by type of space and £ per sqm (GIA) of new space developed.
Key results
• Adoption of balanced growth policies will contribute towards the jobs and housing targets outlined in the London Plan 2021-2041. In the other two scenarios these targets are at risk.
• Balanced growth would deliver around 407,000 jobs in the CAZ+ by 2045, on track to reach the 367,000 new officebased jobs set out for CAZ+ in the London Plan by 2041 and 41m sq ft of office space, above the 38m sq ft target set out in the London Plan. Much of this growth will be likely to occur in Opportunity Areas (OAs) located within the CAZ+, and areas with new developments.
• By 2045, balanced growth would exceed the target of new homes in CAZ+ with an estimated 2,300 new homes yearly
in the scenario against targeted 1,700 new homes yearly to be in line with targets set in the London Plan.
Other scenarios deliver lower levels of growth. The Checks on growth scenario could lead to a decline in office space and jobs, and stagnant GVA, while delivering around 37,000 new homes (below the London Plan targets and 30% less than balanced growth).
Defining the CAZ+
The area (see map on previous page)
The Central Activities Zone (CAZ) presents a unique economic landscape, encompassing various concentrations of predominantly service sector industries, cultural landmarks and residential areas.
Despite its geographical distinctiveness, the Northern Isle of Dogs (NioD) which includes Canary Wharf, maintains close functional ties with the CAZ, particularly concerning its role in global financial and business services.
Consequently, it is frequently considered alongside the CAZ by planners and economists when examining London's core, with the combined area being termed the CAZ+. Notably, London's centre spans across 10 different boroughs, a rarity among major cities. The largest portion of the CAZ+ belongs to Westminster (14.4 sq km) followed by Camden (4.2) and Southwark (4.0). The City of London is entirely included in the CAZ, while Hackney has the smallest area of overlap (0.5 sq km).
The methodology outlined in the appendix of this report accounts for the proportion of each borough that falls within the CAZ+ boundary. The CAZ Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) provides supplementary guidance on London Plan Policies around economy, culture, retail, environment and housing to ensure that the right balance is struck in different parts of the CAZ.
The CAZ+ area contributes to almost half (48%) of London’s GVA and 41% of the capital’s jobs, despite occupying just 2.2% of Greater London’s land area.
The CAZ+ represents the vibrant heart and globally instantly recognisable core of London. The unique international, national and London-wide roles it performs are based on an agglomeration and rich mix of strategic functions and local uses.
It is characterised by high levels of transport accessibility and connectivity, enabling access to a skilled and diverse labour supply pool from further afield. The distinct environment and heritage of the CAZ+ also contributes to its national and international role and reputation.
The area is home to 65% of all office floorspace within London while accounting for 33% of all commercial spaces, further underlining its position as the business and employment heart of the capital. This is in part due to the area’s role as home to UK central Government and its attractiveness as a head office location to supporting industries, as well as financial services in the City of London and Canary Wharf. The CAZ+ hosts established creative industries in areas such as Soho, retail on Oxford and Regent Streets, and health and education clusters around the Euston Road and on the CAZ+ fringe at Whitechapel and White City. The West
End is synonymous with London theatre, while the broader area includes South Bank/Bankside/ London Bridge, the Barbican,
King’s Cross, and the South Kensington museum complexes, in addition to various smaller clusters and cultural establishments. Furthermore, it acts as a global destination for night- time offer, centered in Soho, Covent Garden, and Shoreditch.
These activities are supported by Special Policy Areas, put in place to sustain valued specialist clusters or functions identified as having a particular significance to London’s unique identity, economic function or cultural heritage. Opportunity Areas act as targeted growth areas within the capital to further reinforce London’s central role as a top destination to live, play and work.
The CAZ+ is also home to an estimated 350,000 residents, concentrated in Westminster, Camden, Islington and Southwark, meaning that it would be London’s fifth largest borough in its own right (with a population similar to Newham). The diversity of communities living in the area, and demand for housing from elsewhere, also implies the need to provide a variety of housing while preserving and enhancing the unique character of these neighbourhoods.
The London Plan sets out a framework for supporting the various CAZ+ strategic functions
The London Plan plays a key role in shaping future CAZ+ growth by encouraging agglomeration and the rich mix of strategic functions present in the area. The relevant policy documents in the context of the CAZ+ include the London Plan and the relevant borough local plans (see also p.72, Appendix). The London Plan 2021 emphasised that the CAZ+ should be promoted and enhanced due to its unique international, national, and London-wide roles based on a rich mix of strategic functions and local uses. It also highlighted the importance of supporting and enhancing the nationally and internationally significant office functions of the CAZ+ by providing sufficient space for various occupier types and sizes, alongside sustaining and enhancing its distinct environment and heritage.
>>>
The London Plan set ambitious targets for office space provision. The delivery of 38m sqft of new office space in the CAZ+ was targeted by 2041 (or 1.5m sqft per annum) and creation of 367,000 office- based jobs by 2041.
Retail and hotel sectors were also targeted for growth. Around 4.0m sqm of additional retail space was projected, while the London City Plan targeted 58,000 hotel rooms in London by 2041, a large part of which likely to be in the CAZ+.
The London Plan also prioritised housing delivery, with approximate 16,900 new homes by 2029 in the CAZ+ (calculated using CAZ+ borough targets and apportioning these to current share of borough dwellings within CAZ+), including a 35% proportion designated as affordable.
The London Plan set out clear objectives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in operation and minimising both annual and peak energy demand. Major development proposals must provide a detailed energy strategy outlining how they will achieve the zero-carbon target within the energy hierarchy framework. Additionally, a minimum on-site reduction of 35% beyond Building Regulations was mandated for major developments, with residential projects required to achieve a 10% reduction and non-residential developments a 15% reduction through energy efficiency measures. n
Historical ingredients for creating successful new towns
New new towns could play a valuable role in the housing shortage, says Samuel Hughes
RIGHT:
The Kingdom of Wessex founded or refounded fortified ‘burhs’ all over southwest England, most of which became towns and continue to flourish today.
Source: Creative Commons
Debates about housing policy in Britain tend to go in predictable circles, with the participants repetitively invoking a small range of examples. In the case of new towns, almost the only reference points are the postwar New Towns like Stevenage, Telford and Milton Keynes, and people’s views on new towns generally tend to be determined by their feelings about these. The postwar New Towns are indeed fascinating projects, and deserve careful study.
Samuel
Hughes is Head of Housing at the Centre for Policy Studies
But planned new towns in Britain have a much longer history. Reviewing that history yields some useful hints about what might make new towns work today. Those with a hardline stance against all new towns should consider the many successful examples.
The history of new towns in Britain goes back to the Roman Empire, whose planned settlements included modern Colchester, Gloucester and York. The practice was revived by Alfred the Great, who established a network of fortified towns across southern England, either refounding Roman settlements (like Exeter) or founding completely new ones (like Oxford). These towns played a crucial role in defending the people of Wessex from the Vikings.
In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, scores of new towns were established, both by the royal government and by local lords.
Although new towns were established across the country, the heaviest investment often went into fortress towns in areas of conflict, where they served as instruments both of defence and conquest by the Plantagenet government. Conwy and Caernarfon are examples of this in Wales.
In the later centuries, huge and splendid ‘new towns’ were often built when old cities finally burst out from their fortifications. This was extremely common in Continental Europe, where such fortifications lasted longer than they did in Britain: the Neustadt of Hamburg, the Ville-Neuve of Nancy, the Nové Město of Prague and the Nowe Miasto of Warsaw were all ‘new towns’ that have now become flourishing districts of the cities from which they originally separated. The Edinburgh New Town is the most celebrated British case of this, and Butetown in the Cardiff Bay Area has many similar characteristics.
In the nineteenth century the development of railways allowed many British cities to be ringed by satellite towns. Many of these were built around existing villages, but others were planned from nothing, like Chorleywood or Bournville. In the early twentieth century this tradition was expanded into that of the garden suburbs and cities, most famously at Hampstead, Welwyn and Letchworth.
BELOW:
Welwyn
Why have people so often planned out whole new towns rather than relying on piecemeal urban expansion? The answer lies in the need that cities have always had for public goods. Cities are profoundly reliant on a host of services that it is not normally profitable for any one individual to provide, like roads and parks. New towns offer an opportunity for providing these public goods to an extent that existing settlements normally do not, because they have one planning authority who can act in the interest of the whole community.
In the case of the earlier British new towns, the key public good in question seems to have been fortification. Anglo-Saxon towns desperately needed fortifications to defend them from the Vikings, but city walls would never emerge from piecemeal ‘free market’ urban development. Urban life could survive and flourish only if the government of Wessex invested massively in fortified new towns, or in fundamentally reconfiguring existing ones so that they became defensible.
Later new towns have specialised in providing more peaceable public goods. Many new towns have better street networks than unplanned towns, because the planning authorities designed each road with a view to supporting the road network as a whole. Many, like the Edinburgh New Town, have wonderful architecture, because their architects designed each building with a view to maximising the value of the town as a whole, not just the individual plot.
Many have excellent provision of parks and street trees, which generate no revenues in themselves, but which are vital to successful neighbourhoods. Many have more and better shopping crescents, because their designers knew that, although shops often pay less rent than housing, they are a benefit to the housing around them. All these are examples of how new towns can overcome the collective action problems that beleaguer existing settlements.
Despite this, not all new towns live up to their promise. Sometimes, this is because they are badly planned, failing to take the opportunities that unified design offers. Karlsruhe in Germany still suffers from a dysfunctional radial street network because the prince who founded it liked the idea that all its streets would radiate outwards from his throne room. Cumbernauld’s megastructure town centre, linked to the surrounding neighbourhoods by elevated concrete walkways, was a good faith attempt to mitigate the impact of cars on public spaces. Sadly, it does not seem to have worked well, and the local council now plans to demolish it.
However, the most serious problem often faced by new towns is a poor choice of location. In 1286 Edward I founded Nova Villa on the southern shore of Poole Bay, giving it extensive privileges and ordering royal planners to lay out its streets. The
RIGHT:
Like many new towns, the Ville-Neuve of Nancy (right) is immediately recognisable by its regular street plan. Source: Creative Commons
Garden City, one of the pioneering new towns of the interwar period.
RIGHT:
The layout and architecture of the Edinburgh New
charter was issued, the streets were laid out, and then – nothing happened. Despite the King’s investment, Nova Villa just wasn’t as attractive a location as Poole. Today, the only remnant of Nova Villa is a farmhouse called ‘Newton’, a translated and contracted version of its grandiose Latin name.
In 1631 Cardinal Richelieu, one of the most powerful men in Europe, decided to build an ideal town as an ornament to his country palace in the Loire Valley. Thousands of builders worked for eleven years to build the physical fabric, and extensive financial inducements were offered to encourage people to settle there. Despite this, Richelieu (for so the town was named) never really took off: there was no economic reason for there to be a town there, and the residents remained heavily reliant on the Cardinal’s subsidies. After his death, the town declined, and grass grew in its architecturally perfect streets. Richelieu remains obscure and quiet today.
The importance of location is also clear from Britain’s more recent experience of new towns. The intention behind the New Towns Programme was to meet the housing needs of Britain’s growing economic centres. Politics sometimes prevented planners from realising this, but when it did not, the New Towns tended to work well.
This was true even when their design was imperfect. Few today would claim that Milton Keynes is a model of walkable urbanism,
Town reflected the best planning principles of its day.
BELOW:
The street network of Karlsruhe radiates from the prince’s throne room. This is not necessarily ideal for traffic circulation.
Source: Picryl
RIGHT:
Political pressures tended to force later new towns further from London, even though London had the most acute housing scarcity – contrary to planners’ original objectives. Source: Works in Progress
but it is nonetheless prosperous and sought-after: whatever its drawbacks may be, they are trumped by one overriding attraction, namely easy access to the great employment centres of England along the West Coast Main Line.
Something similar is also true of many of the early new towns like Stevenage and Crawley. The new towns that have struggled have been those where there was little underlying economic justification for their location, leaving them permanently in need of some form of subsidy.
BELOW:
Great investments were made in the town of Richelieu, but it proved difficult to attract inhabitants.
Source: Creative Commons
What is the recipe for getting location right? The most consistent class of successes seem to be new towns planned alongside growing existing settlements, huge urban extensions with their own urbanistic identity. As noted above, this often happened historically when cities that had become overcrowded behind their fortifications were finally allowed to burst out from them.
Strangely, green belting means that Britain has a number of places today in a situation rather like this: cities whose populations have grown hugely have hardly expanded outwards for decades, and now have a great deal of suppressed demand that might best be met
in the form of a large, coherently planned new town rather than piecemeal extensions. The Department has already begun work on a version of this with its Cambridge New Town. The new government might look at York, Bristol and Oxford.
The other great class of successes are cities that, though physically distant from major economic centres, enjoy excellent transport connections to them. In the past, this has been a very normal mode of operations: the progressive western extension of the Metropolitan Line was entirely funded by building what are effectively small new towns around railway stations in the Chiltern Hills.
This model is still theoretically possible, but today’s Britain struggles to build new railways. The easiest way to start might be by removing bottlenecks on existing railways and then using the increased capacity created to add new stations with towns around them. Crossrail 2 offers immense potential for this in the medium term, but there may be bottlenecks that could be fixed more swiftly.
None of this is to suggest that new towns are the whole solution to the housing shortage. But they could play a valuable role. New towns need to be ‘gently dense’, mixed use, highly walkable, with outstanding public transport and popular architecture. But above all, they need to be in the right place. n
First published in Building Design, with kind consent
Samuel Hughes is a research fellow at the University of Oxford. He has worked on housing policy in a range of think tank and civil service roles. Previously he studied at Cambridge, Notre Dame and Tokyo.
Nick Ross & Barbara Iddon
introduce their new book, Blueprints for the Soul RIBA Publishing £35.00
Blueprints for the Soul Nick Ross & Barbara Iddon
Our mission: To convey the crucial importance of emotion and beauty in everyday architecture, to identify and describe the factors that currently inhibit its flourishing, and to find a workable solution. We knew we were going to have to dig deep… and we did.
When we’d started working together some months before, it certainly wasn’t with the intention of writing a book. But we discovered many shared concerns about what was happening in the construction industry, not least the increasingly dispiriting, featureless, aesthetically displeasing state of the everyday built environment. Whilst, at the time, a good deal of justified prominence was given over to many important issues relating to the industry, it seemed the simple truth that great design provides a significant enhancement to people’s lives (and its opposite significant damage), was fading into the distance. Some seemed to have almost forgotten that beyond the purely functional aspects of everyday buildings, architecture is actually about the positive feelings and experiences they can create for the people who use them, as well as encouraging a beneficial and supportive, collective civic life. Someone needed to write a baook about it. As it turned out, the juxtaposition of an architect and practice owner with a social scientist and writer turned out to be a winning formula when it came to exploring this multilayered and very human issue. Thus, Blueprints for the Soul was born.
It was important to us to write a book that was accessible and engaging, but nevertheless, of substance. A book that would be interesting to all, whether they be students, architects, planners, politicians, developers or academics. Because, as the saying goes, ‘It takes a village to raise a child’. In this instance, the ‘child’ is the built environment. It takes many kinds of people and skills to create it, and it will take many kinds of people and skills to improve it. And that is our ambition.
The lack of emotion and beauty in our everyday built environment isn’t a dramatic, full-frontal attack on us, it’s a steady drip that ultimately wears away at even the most hardy human. In a good built environment that feels alive and engaged, that feels like it cares, we ourselves can be more alive and engaged. Just as our interactions with people can influence our mood, our interactions with the built environment act in much the same way. Each ugliness of countenance, each difficulty of navigation, each lack of harmony, each advertisement of neglectful thinking creates stress within us. In the worst-case scenario, in the worst examples of cheap indifference and hollow dysfunctionality, it can lead us into despair. The conditions and pressures we’ve identified as leading to this point are complex and many, but the solutions are simpler than one might think. When we unravel the knot of competing philosophies and egos, disentangle the centuries of fashion, sweep the dead leaves of getting away with it aside, we find the rendered truth and purity that thousands of years of building has bequeathed to us beneath the noise. We find the instincts, the
eternal qualities that repeatedly demonstrate what’s required of us. These eternal qualities are the foundation that must be present in order to bring buildings and places to life and set the stage for emotion and beauty. We propose this empirical thread demonstrates there are three qualities crucial to the fulfilment of aesthetic appeal and emotional satisfaction in our everyday buildings, which we define as Harmonious, Eternal and Unmeasurable. These are qualities that can lead us to strive for infinitely inventive, creative and beautiful architecture.
Good architecture creates the circumstances where we can satisfy our instincts, feel safe and connected and absorb the positive emotional energy in our surroundings that can only enhance our being. Emotion in architecture matters because it satisfies and encompasses the human condition and offers a glimpse into the transcendent. It allows us to admire, appreciate and engage. n
RIGHT:
Sagrada Familia, Barcelona. Antoni Gaudi. Architecture can stir different emotions in different people
The book talks about people, making as a creative and productive activity, and a unique place, London.
Londoners
Making London
Jan Kattein
Lund Humphries
£33.23 on Amazon
Londoners Making London by Jan Kattein
Londoners Making London tells the story of nine projects that have transformed urban neighbourhoods. Countering the expectation that the development of cities is exclusively controlled by architects, planners and developers, this book demonstrates that transformational change is increasingly driven by communities.
In areas such as Wandsworth, Shoreditch and Wood Green, young and old can be seen working together with determination, conviction and often against all odds to create better places to live, learn and play.
Colourful street parties, co-housing, new libraries, urban food gardens and local enterprise spaces all illustrate what can be done when people work together. In-depth interviews with instigators, community activists, campaigners and self-builders illuminate the projects. Their stories candidly reveal challenges, share moments of triumph and provide insight into how we might scale up the impact of grass-roots urbanism.
For anyone seeking to change their community for the better, Londoners Making London offers the tools and inspiration to turn passion into action.
Author’s introduction
This book tells the story of nine projects that have redefined neighbourhoods through the eyes of those involved. Interviews with instigators, community activists, campaigners and selfbuilders illuminate the projects from an experiential and personal angle.
The book talks about London and about Londoners.
City-making is often seen as the domain of professionals, architects, planners and engineers.
Transformational change is increasingly driven by communities
who, through their passion, conviction and determination, and often against all odds, created better places for and with their communities.
The methodology that I have used in writing this book is a close reflection of how we practise at Jan Kattein Architects. Design for us is never the result of singular authorship and is instead shaped by a diversity of voices. That is true also for this book.
My role when practising and when writing is to instigate the conversation and then to identify and name prevailing and contrasting concerns, views and observations and to build common ground.
What really interested me when I set out to write Londoners Making London was whether there are parallels, recurring themes, methods or approaches that connect the projects and their initiators, and what we might learn from them. And whilst every project and the experience of its authors is highly individual, it is only when people come together and share their insight that we can scale our impact. I have grouped the case studies into four chapters in accordance with the principal themes that define the projects: Ecology + Leadership; Learning + Enterprise; Building + Making; and Temporality + Activation.
With the selection of the nine projects that I have included, I do not want to make a quality judgement.
THE AUTHOR
Jan Kattein is an author, lecturer and practitioner who lives in London. After studying architecture at UCL, he worked in housing and theatre design. In 2004 he finally established his own studio. He is lecturer in Architecture and Engagement at UCL, a fellow of the Institute of Place Management and a registered architect.
Today, Jan Kattein Architects is recognized internationally as a leading placemaking and participatory design practice with award-winning projects celebrated for their spatial and civic accomplishments.
Yet, transformational change is increasingly driven by people. Communities coming together to change their neighbourhoods for the better. Young and old working as one to create places that better meet their needs, that support well-being and give people a sense of belonging. Those formerly excluded from town planning are starting to tackle deficiencies from the bottom up.
Areas such as Wandsworth, Shoreditch and Wood Green can all tell incredibly important stories of change which has brought people together. Be it street parties, urban gardening, invigorated empty spaces or redesigned neighbourhoods, they all have a story to tell that illustrates what can be done when people work together.
I met my interviewees through my work with municipalities, NGOs and communities in London.
Some of the projects that I have included, my colleagues at Jan Kattein Architects have implemented. However, the book is not about architects or architecture; it is about those individuals
There are hundreds if not thousands of other examples out there that are equally laudable and impactful and that deserve to have their story told.
The selection is initially the result of pragmatism.
Projects where I had contacts and access to photographs made it onto the shortlist. Those that volunteered to contribute were interviewed.
There was, however, an unexpected benefit which has validated the approach that I took. Working with partners who had sometimes become friends meant that a space of trust was created during the interviews where interviewees felt comfortable to convey personal insights or experiences that have been instrumental in crystallising their motivation.
As with many of the stories in the book, the book itself has been a way to mobilise people to contribute, to share their expertise and to inspire others.
The title of the book is deliberate. It talks about people, making as a creative and productive activity, and a unique place, London. n
Nicholas de Klerk reviews Modern Buildings in Blackheath and Greenwich: London 19502000 by Ana Francisco Sutherland first published in Building Design
Books £27.46 on Amazon
IMAGE ABOVE:
James Gowan, Trafalgar Road Housing
Modern Buildings in Blackheath and Greenwich:1950-2000
Ana Francisco Sutherland’s new book demonstrates compellingly how the architecture that now characterises the area is deeply rooted in the place and its history, writes Nicholas de Klerk
I should declare an interest at the outset of this review; I have lived in the subject area of Ana Francisco Sutherland’s new book for almost a decade and for almost four of them in one of the buildings she has included in her study. Francisco Sutherland herself has lived in the area longer than I have and lives in another of the buildings. Meeting her to discuss the book, she explained how it started as a research project alongside starting her own practice which took on a new impetus during the pandemic in 2020.
This decade-long project is personal. In it, Francisco Sutherland has compiled building profiles, interviews with the architects and their families as well as their clients. As Neil Bingham points out in his introduction Francisco Sutherland has taken advantage of the fact that the construction of many of the buildings and the lives of their designers and occupants are within living memory. She has documented a compelling oral history of her subject(s) and has ‘woven a story of relationships.’
This demonstrates just how personally invested the architects and their clients were in these projects, and further shows the astonishing concentration of groundbreaking and in some cases radical modernist projects in the area. The work of Eric Lyons with his client Leslie Bilsby on Span housing projects is relatively well known but other names that populate this pantheon include familiar ones such as Chamberlin, Powell and Bon, Walter Greaves,
Half of the photographs of the architects in the book have been sourced from the RIBA archive and half, never seen before, from personal archives. Completing the photography of the buildings that survive was a two-year undertaking by Pierce Scourfield. Francisco Sutherland notes in the introduction that she has taken the opportunity to provide more information on less well-known architects than their better-known and published counterparts (all gathered through primary research) and as such has made a valuable contribution to the body of knowledge on this period of architecture and in this area.
Francisco Sutherland has designed a fascinating graphic which charts the relationships between the various architects featured in the book, as people who were friends, had worked for or with one another, as teacher and student, people who have designed their own houses or who have lived on a Span estate. This mapping places Dannatt, Greaves, Moro and Gordon and Ursula Bowyer at the heart of this community – for, in this telling, it certainly appears as one.
It also, at a glance, shows how few women were identified as authors of buildings in the area – and who make up only two of this number – which tells a slightly different story. This, as is so often the case, is a function of how these histories are written. Here too, Francisco Sutherland makes an important contribution in surfacing other stories and designers such as Rosemary >>>
Peter Moro, Trevor Dannatt, James Gowan and Patrick Gwynne as well as perhaps less well-known names such as Julian Sofaer, Leo Rubenstein and Royston Summers.
Stjernstedt, Carol Moller and Teresa Forrest, that might otherwise remain less visible.
Francisco Sutherland posits the book as one about relationships, and there are many stories about individual architects and clients that illustrate this. This is sketched out against a backdrop of life in post-war London, with details of areas within the two neighbourhoods that suffered significant bomb damage and the planning and policy response across the capital that considered the question of rebuilding not just housing, but places and communities after the war. Material shortages also shaped how early Span housing was designed, with painted timber cladding and wall tiles replacing the use of brick.
The 1951 Festival of Britain also played a part with the restoration of the Paragon, recognised as one of nineteen projects that ‘contributed to civic or landscape design’, while a significant number of architects working on Festival projects lived or worked in the neighbourhood. This all took place in the context of an area rich in both heritage and architectural experimentation which are, the book suggests, fundamental to both the concentration and the design of the modernism that followed.
To see Modern Buildings in Blackheath and Greenwich as simply a guide to buildings of a defined period in a specific area would be to miss the point of the book, in my view. It reads more as a genealogy and demonstrates compellingly how the architecture that now characterises the area is deeply rooted in the place and its history.
The lives and stories of the architects and their buildings, of the people who lived and continue to live in them, whose influence spread far beyond the confines of this study, makes the case for its wider relevance and, I think, as a template for similar studies of other parts of London. n
RIGHT:
Eric Lyons, South Row
BELOW: Chamberlain, Powell & Bon Vanbrich Park Estate
Peter Darley looks to strengthen the commercial rewards of revealing and celebrating the railway heritage of the Camden railway lands
£24.99 on Amazon
Chalk Farm Railway Lands: a guided tour 1830 - 2030
Between the North London Line and the West Coast Main Line, St George is redeveloping the former Camden Goods Yard on a new vertical scale, “reaching for the sky” as Marcus Davey the CEO of the Roundhouse puts it. The new buildings are founded on land that the railway had already raised almost two storeys on fill from Primrose Hill Tunnel and approach cutting nearly two centuries ago.
The Camden Goods Yard site is surrounded on all sides by the “Seven Wonders of Chalk Farm Railway Lands”, as Camden Railway Heritage Trust has dubbed them, the finest assembly of early railway heritage in the country, which is set alongside important canal heritage.
This heritage is poorly understood and much remains hidden. A complex area has been treated in the past as isolated pockets rather than as a larger and more comprehensible whole. This fragmentation has made it easier to misinterpret and abuse the heritage. Examples of the destruction of important heritage, justified by so-called professional advice, are given in the book.
But the loss of heritage is ongoing. As a contemporary example, three prospective round towers are proposed for student accommodation at 100 Chalk Farm Road, alongside the Roundhouse. Regal London acquired the site from the One Housing Group. Their proposal involves demolition of a key remaining part of the Great Wall of Camden rather than incorporating this important feature into an imaginative local landscape plan. Does such failure to ensure the survival of key heritage stem from ignorance? In the absence of any approach from the developer, despite the Trust raising objections, we have our doubts.
The book continues the Trust’s ongoing role in education, raising the profile of the area and its heritage significance to create a historical baseline that should make it harder in future to misinterpret the past. The book is also a means towards more ambitious Trust purposes – namely revealing the heritage and putting it to a sustainable use.
These purposes are being promoted not only by the book but also by the feasibility study, funded by London Borough of Camden, that the Trust commissioned for Stephenson Walk, a vital 500 metre pedestrian and cycleway that will integrate Camden Goods Yard into its wider urban context. The passage along the West Coast Main Line railway will link Camden and Primrose Hill and pass Stephenson’s Winding Vaults. Our vision is to bring the Winding Vaults and other features of Stephenson’s Camden and Primrose Hill legacy into the public domain and to celebrate them, all of the heritage he created at Euston having long been erased.
I am sure we can agree that development anchored to heritage creates real benefits for both developer and the community. This is a unique area and we must cherish it. But the Trust’s
ability to effect outcomes and turn the vision into reality is very limited.
The Trust is therefore appealing to a consortium of site owners and other interested parties to share its vision and work together. The Camden Goods Yard Working Group should be converted from a talking shop into the Chalk Farm Railway Lands Board, a structure that formally recognizes the fragility of the heritage and the need for collaboration so that the commercial rewards of revealing and celebrating the heritage can be shared in a unified approach. n
Peter Darley is a Director of the Camden Railway Heritage Trust
Camden incline looking towards Euston from under Hampstead Road Bridge, September 1837, TT Bury
Stationary winding engine house on Camden incline
Peter Darley introduces
this
delightful book on the railway lands of Camden
Camden Goods Station Through Time
The London & Birmingham Railway was the major project of its day, designed by Robert Stephenson, one of the great railway pioneers, who also supervised its construction and its opening in 1837. The first railway of any length, it changed the travel and commercial habits of the British people. The experience gained formed the basis for much of the development of civil engineering in Britain and established the construction technology of the railway age. It precipitated the railway mania of the 1840s.
Camden Goods Station became the goods terminus and Euston Station the passenger terminus. For a few years trains were hauled by rope from Euston up the incline to Camden before the intensification of both passenger and goods services rendered such technology obsolete.
that was so intimately associated with the goods station. From there we deviate onto sidings at Camden Goods Station from where we transfer goods to road and canal or branch onto the North London Railway to the Docks. The journey is one through both time and space and explores a number of side tracks.
The book is lavishly illustrated with 200 illustrations and 15,000 words to weave the story together in 96 pages. The paintings and lithographs, drawings and photographs, both for the main line and the goods station, will surprise and delight. As well as images from early 19th century railway artistsJohn Cooke Bourne, Thomas Talbot Bury, Robert Schnebbelie and George Scharf -some of the finest 20th century railway painters and photographers have provided their images.
PeterDarleyisacharteredengineer and lives in Primrose Hill. He conductsguidedtoursandgives talks on the area’s industrial heritage.Thebook’sgenesislieswith theauthorstumblingacrossa hiddenarchitecturalgem–PrimroseHillTunneleastportals. Thisledhimonaquestforfurther information and resulted in the foundingofCamdenRailway HeritageTrust.TheTrustaimsto explaintherichheritageofthe areatoawideraudience,openup thesitestothepublicandconsolidate the historical record.
The separation of Camden Goods Station from the public domain was symbolised by the ‘Great Wall of Camden’. The massive wall ran along the Hampstead Road from just north of the Regent’s Canal bridge to beyond the Roundhouse. It retained up to 15ft (4.6m) of fill, the level of the railway lands above street level. David Thompson described it (In Camden Town) as “higher and blacker than the wall of Manchester’s gaol”. The barrier was mental as much as physical, as the dearth of text and images about the activities behind the wall bears witness.
The book seeks to shine a light into this little known world. Its area of focus starts with the first main line railway into London, specifically the section from Primrose Hill to Euston
The L&BR and its successors have left a strong footprint on the landscape from Euston to Camden Town and Primrose Hill. The story moves from rapid economic growth to eventual decline and then to the recent regeneration. Four grade II* listed buildings survive in this internationally important location: the Roundhouse, Primrose Hill Tunnel east portals, the stationary winding engine vaults and the Horse Hospital, as well as a host of grade II buildings. The historic features in and around the former goods station are providing the basis for Camden’s transformation through its markets, media, music, food and entertainment into a global brand. ■ AvailabledirectfromtheTrust(emailDarleyp@aol.com)for£12.00including postage,orfromallgoodbookshops(ISBN978-1-4456-2204-0,price£14.99). AllproceedsfromsalesgotoCamdenRailwayHeritageTrust.
London of the Future is a once-in-a-century publication from the London Society. The 昀rst edition was created in 1921 and proposed such ‘radical’ ideas as a green belt around London and a tunnel that would connect London to France.
100 years later, we asked a group of experts what could and should happen to London in the coming years and the responses have included natural solutions, different scales of economy, new forms of governance, better local food production, a radical rethink of education, improved housing provision and even dabbling in arti昀cial intelligence.
Contributors include: Anna Minton, Carolyn Steel, Claire Bennie, Baroness Lawrence, Gillian Darley, Grafton Architects, Hugh Pearman, Indy Johar, Jude Kelly, Kat Hanna, Mark Brearley, Mark Stevenson, Neal Shasore, Roma Agrawal, Sarah Ichioka, Smith Mordak, Tony Travers and Yasmin Jones-Henry.
londonsociety.org.uk
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 Borough of Barking and Dagenham Barking Town Hall Barking IG11 7LU 020 8215 3000
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
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
OTHER ORGANISATIONS
Greater London Authority City Hall
Kamal Chunchie Way London E16 1ZE
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
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
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
Kamal Chunchie Way, London E16 1ZE info@designforlondon.gov.uk
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
China National Publications, Deloitte, Womble Bond Dickinson, 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, L B Islington, CBE, GL Hearn, Holistic Group, White Young Green, Dentons, i-Document Solutions, Trowers & Hamlins, 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, 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, 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, BWCP Architects, WSP Indigo, Slaughter and May, LSE library, British Land Company, Dentons, HTA Design, Howard Kennedy, ...
... 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. Bank transfer: HSBC 40-07-13 a/c 91551655 'Planning in London'. A subscription is a licence for 5 copies emailed in PDF format. Please supply up to 5 email addresses to planninginlondon@mac.com
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
Department of Levelling up, Communities and Local Government 020 7944 4400
Sarah Allan, head of design designquality@levellingup.gov.uk
Simon Gallagher, director, planning
Go to planninginlondon.com > Subscribe and pay online with
132 January 2025
I would like to subscribe from: last issue 130 July 2024 this issue 131 October 2024 next issue
I enclose a cheque for £99.00 (no VAT, payable to Planning in London) I am interested in advertising in the Advice directory (£300 for one year)
Please debit my card £106 (£99+£6.00 for credit card administration, no VAT payable)
Card type: VISA MASTERCARD
Card number:
Expiry date: security no:
Signature:
Name on card:
Firm:
Card billing address:
Delivery address if different:
Tel: XX
Up to 5 Email addresses:
Post cheque to: Planning in London, Studio Petersham, Gorshott, 181 Petersham Road TW10 7AW for the attention of Melanie Hern
The High Streets (Designation, Review and Improvement Plan) Bill went down the plughole with the parliamentary ‘wash-up’ –what will replace it, asks Catherine Pollard
The need for opportunities to enhance town centres
High streets and town centres are facing a plethora of problems, most of which are linked to the changing face of the retail industry. The Centre for Retail Research has described the British retail industry as facing a “permacrisis” since the 2008 financial crisis, as a result of factors including the rise of internet retailing, changes in consumer preferences, store closures and other changes on the high street, many of which were accelerated by the Coronavirus pandemic.
Catherine Pollard is Principal Planner, planning and design consultancy, Boyer
Challenges faced by high street retailers and the associated problems in town centres have seen the creation of several initiatives and funding schemes designed to help them adapt to an era in which traditional retail may no longer be the focal point of town centres. These include the Future High Streets Fund, High Street Heritage Action Zones, the Long Term Plan for Towns and High Street Accelerators, as well as the creation of the High Streets Task Force, an organisation composed of high street experts providing tailored guidance, support and resources to local authorities on high street issues.
Despite this, our high streets and town centres continue to have ever-increasing numbers of empty units, many of whichparticularly the larger units such as those previously occupied by Debenhams or Marks and Spencer - create large holes in the high street scene. High streets also come under fire from the national press with complaints they now only contain charity shops or cof-
fee shops, with the traditional variety of the high street a distant memory.
The High Streets (Designation, Review and Improvement Plan) Bill, introduced as a Private Members Bill in December 2023, sought to assist local planning authorities in their efforts to improve high streets in towns across England. This would have required local authorities to designate high streets in their area, to undertake and publish periodic reviews of the condition of those high streets and to develop action plans for their improvement. This sounds ideal in principle, and the Bill did gain some support on its route through the Commons. However, not all were supportive of its aims, with the Local Government Association (LGA) criticising it as being “unnecessary” and “a distraction from what councils really need to protect and enhance the future of their high streets”. Many suggest that a council’s ability to improve its high streets has already been hampered by successive extensions of permitted development rights and changes to the national Use Class Order, resulting in less control over land uses such as retail, offices and takeaways - meaning local people have less of a say over what their high streets can look like. More recently, the size limit and vacancy requirement has been changed which means any Class E building can more readily be converted to residential, reducing further the ability for councils to help protect and improve their high streets.
However, it’s important to remember that shops are only one component of high streets, and a variety of uses can assist in ensuring the vitality and viability of our high streets and town centres. We have seen many examples of the larger empty shop units being converted to leisure facilities, be that escape rooms, go kart tracks or axe throwing, helping to enhance the night-time economy. In some towns the councils themselves are looking to move their offices to the town centre to help improve the daytime footfall. The inclusion of residential uses in the town centre can also be beneficial in increasing footfall as well as reducing the fear of crime and other cultural impacts often associated with town centres during the evening.
The Bill had its second reading in the House of Lords in May 2024 but like so much other legislation, fell victim to the announcement of a general election coming a week afterwards and was lost in the ‘wash-up’ of parliamentary bills.
The question remains, what will the new government do to resolve the ‘permacrisis’: can a Bill of this nature be progressed, or are there better opportunities to enhance the town centres? Either way, the next government must find a solution to raising the footfall, both during the day and into the evening, and create vibrant high streets and town centres. n
LEFT: Richmond; ABOVE from top: Bexley, Croydon & Havering town centres
Advice
n Explore how to successfully spend CIL – what is needed to progress delivery of infrastructure?
n Understand the governance structures needed to support the delivery of infrastructure from developer contributions
n Hear how s106 is being applied and can be best used for infrastructure delivery
n Consider the current status of developer contributions and how to align different policies
