Subscriber edition Planning in London 108 January-March 2019

IBP – International Building Press MAGAZINE OF THE YEAR (non-weekly) FINALIST 2018

Regulars OPINIONS pages 10-20 ¡PILLO! page 32 NEIL PARKYN page 21 ANDY ROGERS page 44 Issue 108 January-March 2019

www.planninginlondon.com

CITY BLOOMS DESPITE ‘PROJECT FEAR’ Office lettings at a record, City Vision 2026 page 22; Foster’s Tulip picture feature page 7; BRIEFING Permitted Development rights – Riette Oosthuizen, Simon Owen and Martin Goodall; Budget 2018 – Duncan Field; 2018 in infrastructure planning – Angus Walker; CLICKS vs BRICKS – Stefanie Price page 45; FREIGHT SYSTEMS OF THE FUTURE – Jolyon Drury page 58; BOBBY MOORE ACADEMY– Sunand Prasad page 54; SHAPING LONDON – Sir Terry Farrell: The high street has to evolve or die – Neil Bennett of Farrells THE ESSENTIAL GUIDE TO DEVELOPMENT IN THE CAPITAL

Please subscribe: page 76

RP+BW+MH+DR+/CULS/LP&DF/ACA/NPF

Tuesday 19th March at Dentons, One Fleet Place London EC4M 7RA 1.30 FOR 2.00pm followed by drinks

Annual Planning Update Housing and new settlements: The CaMKoX Arc

In association with

Supported by

Media partner

Keynote: The Government’s agenda for planning

by Steve Quartermain (MHCLG Chief Planner) Followed at 6.00pm by Networking reception sponsored by Dentons BOOK AT: https://www.culandsoc.com or call 01638 507843 The full programme will be available early February

Graphic ©Inside Housing

CONTENTS

page 5 LEADERS Planning a post-Brexit Britain; We can learn from Singapore; Fixing permitted development 7 PICTURE FEATURE The Tulip – a new feature for the City skyline 10 OPINIONS Ten characteristics of places where people want to live Ben Derbyshire; Railways in London – Andrew Bosi; What type of London does the London Plan suggest? – Michael Bach; Keep calm about Scruton – Eleanor Jolliffe; Can design limit densification? – Peter Eversden; A Housing Delivery Authority – Paul Finch; Feeding the scepticism of experts – Ben Taylor; Shouting from the rooftops – Mani Khiroya; Workspace, WeWork, The White Collar Factory and St. Benedict – Peter Wolton; Capturing commonsense – Stephen Ashworth 21 NEIL PARKYN ...and the Winner is

PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS Riette Oosthuizen, Simon Owen, Martin Goodall and Duncan Field; cartoon by Rob Cowan Pages 23-27

22 BRIEFING Office lettings at a record, City Vision 2026; Rob Cowan; briefing: Permitted Development rights – Riette Oosthuizen and Simon Owen; Permitted Development rights – Martin Goodall; Budget 2018: detailed planning analysis – Duncan Field; 2018 in infrastructure planning – Angus Walker; Mayor misses affordable homes target; £10m cash boost for London council’s planning teams; Pocket Living and Tfl pair up; Better urban design – Peter Eversden; 3D model free at the point of use for Londoners; Design matters 32 LETTERS From: R Kinta and Richard Harrison 32 ¡PILLO! 33 CLIPBOARD UK Innovation Corridor; Another go at the Bishopsgate Goodsyard; Tunnelling begins at Thames Tideway Tunnel 34 PLANNING PERFORMANCE Downward trend accelerates for applications and decisions 38 LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM High streets, more Permitted Development rights and Letwin 44 ANDY ROGERS Dan Dare - Planner Of The Future 45 CLICKS VS BRICKS Is online retail a threat or opportunity to bricks and mortar retail? – Stefanie Price

LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM High streets, more permitted development rights and Letwin pages 38-43 www.planninginlondon.com

47 PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP Putting the partnership back into PPP – Matthew Weiner

Continues next page >>>

Issue 108 January-March 2019

3

CONTENTS CONTINUED

>>>

48 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE The growth of green infrastructure – Nick Ferguson 51 NPPF AND STRATEGIC PLANNING The new NPPF introduces a two-tier hierarchy of policies: strategic and non-strategic – Sue Chadwick 54 BOBBY MOORE ACADEMY – Sunand Prasad 58 FREIGHT SYSTEMS OF THE FUTURE – Jolyon Drury 61 CLIMATE CHANGE The financial risks of Climate change – Aleksandra Njagulj

BOBBY MOORE ACADEMY – Sunand Prasad page 54

65 BOOKS ‘The King’s Cross Story’ introduced by the author Peter Darley; ‘Modern London’ by Lukas Novotny reviewed by David Hyde-Harrison; ‘Interpreting the NPPF’ introduced by the author Alistair Mills and reviewed by Jessica Ferm 73 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REFERENCE GUIDE Contacts in all London boroughs and more 76 SUBSCRIPTION FORM Keep taking your PiL! 77 SHAPING LONDON – Sir Terry Farrell The high street has to evolve or die – Neil Bennett 79 ADVICE – Consultants and services

ISSN 1366-9672 (PRINT) ISSN 2053-4124 (DIGITAL) Issue 108 January-March 2019

Publishing Editors: Brian Waters, Paul Finch and Lee Mallett editor@planninginlondon.com, planninginlondon@mac.com Editorial, subscriptions and advertising: Tel: 020 8948 2387/ 07957871477 Email: planninginlondon@mac.com Contents ©Land Research Unit Ltd or as stated Available only on subscription: £99 pa

FREIGHT SYSTEMS OF THE FUTURE – Jolyon Drury page 58 Provides a licence for five copies by email See subscription form or buy online at www.planninginlondon.com.

Planning in London is published quarterly in association with The London Planning & Development Forum by Land Research Unit Ltd Studio Petersham, Gorshott, 181 Petersham Road TW10 7AW Contributors write in a personal capacity. Their

views are not necessarily those of The London Development & Planning Forum or of their organisations.

Correspondence and contributions are invited for consideration. The editors reserve the right to edit material and letters supplied.  Made on a Mac

www.planninginlondon.com The London Planning and Development Forum (LPDF) The LPDF was formed in 1980 following an all-party inquiry into the development control system. It selects topics to debate at its quarterly meetings and these views are reported to constituent bodies. It is a sounding board for the development of planning policy in the capital, used by both the public and private sector.

Agendas and minutes are at planninginlondon.com.

To attend please advise hon. secretary Drummond Robson: robplan@btconnect.com The LPDF is administered by: Honorary Secretary: Drummond Robson MRTPI,

4

Planning in London

41 Fitzjohn Avenue, Barnet, Herts EN5 2HN Tel: 0208 449 3113 Fax: 0208 440 2015: robplan@btconnect.com Chairman: Brian Waters MA DipArch (Cantab) DipTP RIBA MRTPI ACArch P.ACA FRSA Principal: The Boisot Waters Cohen Partnership brian@bwcp.co.uk Member bodies Association of Consultant Architects Association of London Borough Planning Officers/Planning Officers’ Society London Councils British Property Federation Design Council CABE City of London Law Society Confederation for British Industry

DCLG Design for London/Urban Design London Historic England Environment Agency Greater London Authority Home Builders Federation Landscape Architecture SE London Chambers of Commerce & Industry London Forum of Amenity Societies London Housing Federation National Planning Forum ICE, RIBA, RICS, RTPI, UDAL, TCPA Transport for London London University (The Bartlett, UCL) University of Westminster Affiliated members: Planning Aid for London London Metropolitan University

THE LP&DF IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE LONDON SOCIETY

LEADERS

Planning a post-Brexit Britain The planning system should bind Britain together again

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

Are we out without a deal? Or what? We didn’t know what might happen as this issue ‘went to bed’.

But just ahead of the Commons vote in early January, it looked as though the only thing Parliament was able to do was block a ‘no deal’ Brexit. This prompted a leader in The Guardian along the lines of ‘the government has failed – it’s time to go back to the people’ – an argument for a ‘citizens assembly’ to break the impasse, and a radical national plan to even things up between north and south, rich and poor.’

The UK planning system has not been used constructively as a national tool for resolving the consequences of rapid globalisation, tech advances, and centralisation in the South East for many years. In London particularly, where incomes have risen by a third since the crash of 2008. They have fallen by 14 per cent in Humberside and Yorkshire. That outcome cannot be blamed on ‘planning’ – only perhaps on the lack of it.

We’ve been arguing about the arrangement of deckchairs since the Brexit vote in 2016 while nobody has been on iceberg lookout or hull inspection.

‘Long-term comprehensive reform of Britain’s concentrations of economic, social and political power is essential. Inequality must be tackled in a radical way, from the top as well as the bottom.

There must be innovative, sustainable plans for towns, for the north, for the many areas that feel excluded from progress and success,’ said The Guardian. And added: ‘There is no single magic answer to this national need.’

Well yes there is actually. It may not be magic and it will not be a single answer, but it is the planning system. It was an invention of a Labour government (if not the Labour party) and it has endured as a sort of bumbling policeman of the market. But its real purpose is to draw together and make sense of national ambitions for prosperity and fairness. And to remove these to a safe distance from politicians, so that they can be implemented over a longer time scale than the short-term political cycle. This fundamental role has been obscured by the system’s demotion to become a pettifogging, obese development controller.

A new head needs screwing back on to the planning system, including a brain that thinks about the UK’s fundamental needs for reconstruction, refitting and refurbishment – to keep the place afloat and hold it together.

The Conservatives have squandered their inheritance by not addressing things that needed sorting, especially up north. Sink-or-swim blowhard ideology obviously contributed to the Brexit mindset.

Meanwhile Labour has yet to demonstrate it can move forward without using only its rear-view mirror to navigate.

Whichever party is first to pull its head out of wherever they’ve stuck it, the primary goal must be to ‘bind Britain together again’. The planning system is a key tool in helping to do this, but not if it too has its head in the sand of too much local detail. The call for a Citizens Assembly to forge a stronger consensus, in the absence of clear political majority, might also be useful for forging new national planning policies (rather than just development control policies). >>> It’s worth a try. n

www.planninginlondon.com

Issue 108 January-March 2019

5

LEADERS

We can learn from Singapore When it comes to combining density with amenity, aimed at promoting health and wellbeing, look no further

Recent controversy regarding what the UK can learn from Singapore about how to run an economy (despite not being part of the EU) ignored the very real lessons that a city state could teach London, which is not so different in terms of size and population.

How is it that an avowedly free-market country manages to build a sufficiency of housing, and indeed has brought most of the country out of slum conditions over the past half-century? The answer, which seems have evaded successive London mayors – and let’s ignore the litany of nonentity housing ministers – is to run a dirigiste public sector supply programme via the formidable Housing Development Board.

This board actually builds homes as a client, sponsors good architectural competitions, and puts in place landlord/tenant relationships which avoid the us-and-them attitudes which produced Grenfell. Some 80 per cent of Singapore citizens live in state housing and there is no embarrassment about living in this sort of accommodation. Instead of moaning about the country, the Labour Party should be citing its record on housing as proof that the public sector has a critical role to play if we are going to sort out London.

Another lesson we could learn is how to run a public transport system without the almost unbelievable incompetence and dishonest communication cove-ups that have characterised the Crossrail fiasco. Bear in mind that very few Singaporeans own cars because of pricing policies aimed at limiting their use, so public facilities really matter.

And when it comes to combining density with amenity, aimed at promoting health and well-being, look no further. Singapore is an admirable example of a progressive, plan-led society which is flexible and learns as it goes. The mayor should go there for a study, preferably for a prolonged period during which we invite the officials who have made such a success there to come over here and show us how it is done. n

Fixing permitted development All possible measurable standards should be moved into the Building Regulations

6

Planning in London

Last issue we offered an explanation for the emerging ‘shadow’ planning system – Planning in Principle, Prior Notification, the proliferation of Permitted Development rights: this being a government workaround the difficulty of simplifying a sclerotic system.

Nick Raynsford’s Review provides a masterful analysis but a fairly hopeless synthesis: any report with more than half a dozen recommendations is doomed. This has 26!

It's launch by the Town and Country Planning Association was dominated by recriminations against permitted development rights which gave it the atmosphere of a conference of traffic wardens told they could no longer issue tickets.

The TCPA’s Hugh Ellis did make the point that the small proportion of substandard permitted developments (we published a particularly awful example in our last issue) would be blocked if the ‘grey’ interface between planning and building control were properly addressed.

Planners are always claiming to be under-resourced but go on invading areas of objectivity – space standards, energy and sustainability criteria and so on. All possible measurable standards – for housing these should include minimum floor areas, storage, and access to amenity space – should be moved out of planning and into the Building Regulations.

Doing this will eliminate local and political prejudices which complicate basic national standards and will reduce if not eliminate the small margin of collateral damage without harming the considerable benefits being gained by permitted development freedoms.

In 2014–2017 changes of use alone provided 88,000 mainly relatively affordable homes and in London as early as 2015-16 was already producing 19% of new housing. n

PICTURE FEATURE | THE TULIP

The Tulip – a new feature for the City skyline

A planning application was submitted to the City of London Corporation on 13 November 2018 for The Tulip, a new public cultural attraction which would be sited next to 30 St Mary Axe, also known as The Gherkin.

This project is proposed by J. Safra Group and Foster + Partners, owners and architects respectively of 30 St Mary Axe. Deriving its name from its nature-inspired form, The Tulip would enhance The Gherkin, one of London’s most cherished and recognisable buildings and offer a new state-of-the-art cultural and educational resource for Londoners and tourists.

Contributing to the City’s Culture Mile Since the turn of the Millennium, London’s skyline has matured with new high-rise buildings that reflect its growth as a global financial hub. In addition, the City of London Corporation has been driving proposals to enliven the Square Mile by creating a Culture Mile with world-class tourist facilities. The proposal for a unique 305.3-metrehigh visitor attraction reflects a desire to build public engagement within the City and enhance >>>

www.planninginlondon.com

Issue 108 January-March 2019

7

PICTURE FEATURE | THE TULIP

>>> The Gherkin’s public offering. The Tulip promises wide cultural and economic benefits with a diverse programme of events.

ALL IMAGES ©DBOX_Foster + Partners PREVIOUS PAGE: The Tulip - Cluster at dusk and The Skybridge RIGHT: The Tulip Aerial view BELOW: The Tulip Education, Kids FAR RIGHT: The Tulip Atrium

A classroom in the sky A key feature will be the education facility within the top of The Tulip, offering 20,000 free places per year for London’s state school children. This educational resource, provided by the J. Safra Group, will deliver national curriculum topics using innovative tools to bring to life the city’s history and dynamism, inspiring the creative young minds of tomorrow.

Unique visitor experience The Tulip seeks to provide an unparalleled vantage point to view London from a height of around 300 metres. The viewing galleries will offer visitors an engaging experience with sky bridges, internal glass slides and gondola pod rides on the building’s façade that will appeal to people across all age groups. Visitors will benefit from interactive materials and briefings from expert guides about the history of London.

Complementing the experience will be a sky bar and restaurants with 360-degree views of the city.

Contributing to London’s sustainability objectives Completed in 2004, 30 St Mary Axe, now popularly known as The Gherkin, made a positive contribution at ground level by breathing life into its surroundings. The Tulip seeks to extend the site’s public realm further. A new pocket park is proposed alongside a two-storey pavilion offering a publicly accessible rooftop garden. Together with green walls this increases the site’s green surface area by 8.5 times, supporting the Mayor’s goal for London to be the world’s first National Park City.

Public access will also be considerably improved with the removal of over half of the existing perimeter walls around The Gherkin.

The Tulip’s soft bud-like form and minimal building footprint

reflects its reduced resource use, with high performance glass and optimised building systems reducing its energy consumption. Heating and cooling is provided by zero combustion technology while integrated photovoltaic cells generate energy on site.

Significant economic and social benefits The Tulip and The Gherkin will bring life to the City of London at all times of the day and evening, seven days a week. This creates opportunities for a diverse range of businesses to operate out-of-office hours, bringing real economic and social benefits for the local community and for London. The Tulip will offer an outstanding venue to host cultural, educational, business and technology events.

Norman Foster, Founder and Executive Chairman of Foster + Partners says: “Continuing the pioneering design of 30 St Mary Axe, the Tulip is in the spirit of London as a progressive, forwardthinking city. It offers significant benefits to Londoners and visitors as a cultural and social landmark with unmatched educational resources for future generations.”

Reactions Not surprisingly the project has already received controversial reactions. The Telegraph reports: “New London skyscraper is 'attention-seeking' and 'extremely damaging' for Tower of London, charity warns. Historic Royal Palaces has objected to

8

Planning in London

the building of a new "attention-seeking" skyscraper, claiming it would overshadow the Tower of London and detract from its prominence in the city's skyline.”

The Times in an editorial is more supportive.

A new skyscraper for the City of London would be in keeping with its history, it claims: “The Tower of London has been integral to the history of these islands for close on a millennium. It was conceived by William I, completed by Edward I, depicted in drama by William Shakespeare, and promoted as a symbol of sovereign power and authority by the early modern monarchs Elizabeth I, James I and Charles I. Understandably, people want to be able to see it. Hence proposals for a new 1,000-ft skyscraper in the eastern cluster of the City are causing controversy on the grounds that it would blight the view of the Tower from Tower Bridge.

The planned building, dubbed the Tulip because of its shape, is the brainchild of Foster + Partners, which also designed the Gherkin skyscraper in the City. The planning application was lodged last month and has met criticism from Historic England for its impact on the view to the Tower. The heritage campaigners’ case is far from convincing. On the contrary, among the glories of London’s architecture is that it blends the historic and the new.

Until the 1960s, the London skyline was fairly low-level because of planning restrictions aimed at maintaining the visual

www.planninginlondon.com

dominance of such structures as St Paul’s Cathedral and the Houses of Parliament. These restrictions were well-intentioned but could not meet the needs of a commercial centre. The highrise buildings of the 1970s, created to meet those needs, have few admirers for their aesthetics: Centrepoint in the West End and Tower 42 in the City.

The private involvement in urban London development encouraged since the 1980s has produced modern buildings that are functional, visually striking and much admired. The Tulip should take its place alongside the Shard, the Walkie-Talkie and Canary Wharf as a symbol of a great cosmopolitan capital city.” n

Issue 108 January-March 2019

9

OPINION: PLACE MAKING | BEN DERBYSHIRE

Ten characteristics of places where people want to live Ben Derbyshire gives RIBA support to a key recommendation of the Letwin Review The RIBA has produced an analysis, drawn from the professional advice of its members, in response to Sir Oliver Letwin’s Independent Review of Build Out Rates. This has identified the necessary conditions for, and characteristics of, high quality new places where people want to live. The following RIBA report is the precursor to the Future Place project, a partnership with the Local Government Association, Royal Town Planning Institute and Chartered Institute of Housing, which will highlight exemplary placemaking practice around the country.

We hope that this analysis will reinforce the conclusions of the Letwin Review by providing valuable evidence and case studies demonstrating the relationship between design quality and the rate of supply in the delivery of much needed, well-built, affordable homes. Specifically, we commend and respond to the review’s conclusion that: “If either the major house builders themselves, or others, were to offer much more housing of varying types, designs and tenures on the large sites that matched appropriately the desires of communities, then the overall absorption rates could be substantially accelerated.”

The Letwin Review stops short of identifying a direct link between improved design quality and increasing the rate of supply; this report picks up

where the review leaves off by providing a blueprint for how to achieve this.

We have identified a range of case studies which demonstrate what a successful place looks and feels like. From these, we have established ten characteristics of successful and attractive places, which put design quality at the centre, and can be easily replicated across the country. The specific characteristics of this design quality form the substance of the RIBA’s response. (SEE box) It is equally important to have the right environment for delivery that will make these places where people want to live possible. The necessary context for successful placemaking is often neglected, but only by addressing this can we improve both the quality of the homes we are building and the rate of supply.

High quality design is essential, but it must be founded upon the right leadership, the right funding and delivery models, the right collaborative and innovative processes, and the right skills and resources.

Accordingly, this document begins with the four major conditions necessary for successful placemaking, based on the most successful delivery models seen in both historic and recent practice.

We welcome the opportunity to have a more robust discussion about how we deliver the homes needed in this country. Improving design quality and

At the annual ibp journalism awards Planning in London was again a runner-up. From a strong shortlist of seven publications, the honour was shared with the Architects’ Journal.

The winner was New London Quarterly. Our congratulations go to editor David Taylor.

10

Planning in London

RIBA President Ben Derbyshire is chairman of HTA Design

increasing supply will be mutually reinforcing when managed in the right way.

Changing our approach to achieving this is essential to ensure we build places that will last, and where people want to live. n

Some of the RIBA’s conditions necessary for successful placemaking • An approved Local Plan • An ambitious housing-supply target • A clear set of holistic policy ambitions • Well-connected transport offering a choice of modes • Early provision of social infrastructure • Cross-authority working • Affordable housing and realistic viability assessments in response to local housing need • Spatial modelling tools

OPINION: LONDON’S RAILWAYS | ANDREW BOSI

Railways in London 2018 was to have been the year in which we were to reap the benefit of years of disruption with a transformation of the railways. Andrew Bosi reports on disappointing delays and failures With the introduction of the May rail timetable, there were significant changes in the south- east and the north of England, but in both cases not quite what was envisaged. When the Great Western electrification scheme commenced five years ago, it was envisaged that there would be a reduction in diesel emissions along the route out of London by now. That ambition disappeared some time ago. New bi-mode trains are appearing, but the 42-year old HST train sets will be with us a while longer. Some may even see further service out of St. Pancras or King’s Cross.

Removing diesel A more modest electrification scheme was to remove diesel locomotion from north- east London.

Electrification between Gospel Oak and Barking also linked long distance freight routes largely under wires but compelled to use diesel traction to navigate this short stretch of track. The wires were supposed to be in place two years ago but some catastrophic miscalculations by Network Rail meant the work was only finished in April this year.

However, this delay (apart from extending the period of bus replacement) is of little matter because the new electric trains have still to appear. Uncertainty about what rolling stock would be available when, delayed publication of the new timetable until a day before it came into force. The currently used two car diesel trains were promised elsewhere for December.

The new trains have to be tested on the line and drivers have to test run the trains before they can be entrusted with passengers.

London Bridge station transformed Better progress has been made towards amalgamating theThameslink and Southern services. London Bridge station has been transformed out of all recognition. New through services, such as Horsham to Peterborough, began running in advance of the new timetable. Unfortunately, the belief that “everyone” carries a portable telephone with ready access to train timetables, has meant that posters setting out the service as it was in December last year with a currency of “until May 19th” continued to be displayed at stations. Despite the advance running of some of these train services, GoviaThameslink was unable to operate the new published timetable.

www.planninginlondon.com

Numerous cancellations, at one time attributed to stock in the wrong place, continued throughout the weeks that followed. The explanation “due to an operational incident” would more accurately have been reported as “due to a lack of operational incident”. There has also been a delay to the arrival of Andrew Bosi works with rolling stock here. The narrow tunnels into Moorgate, the London Campaign for and the switch from overhead to third rail at Drayton Better Transport Park, limits the type of train that can be used on the stopping trains. The current class 313 trains are the oldest EMUs (electric multiple units) still in service, so Paddington to Abbey Wood. Shenfield trains were to they are not wanted elsewhere, though in an emer- reach Paddington in May 2019 and the complete gency it is possible they could return temporarily to scheme, serving Reading and Heathrow Terminal 5 the Watford line. should have happened from December 2019.

There is no sign of the new Azuma trains which Virgin East Coast were promising on the reverse of An explosion at Pudding Mill Lane their seat reservation tickets more than a year ago. A transformer explosion at Pudding Mill Lane when Virgin East Coast have been relieved of their obliga- the electricity was switched on in September 2017, tions, and a precedent set for any train operating com- and problems getting different signalling systems to pany whose deal offered payments to government in communicate with one another, have cancelled the later years of the contract. Those payments were these deadlines. The platforms are not long enough to based on anticipated increased revenue from the new take 12 car trains, as originally planned, because the trains and signalling upgrades to allow more frequent cars are longer than envisaged. The Elizabeth line will trains, both of which are delayed. Please listen for fur- start with nine car trains (current Shenfield trains have ther announcements. only seven) and later extend to eleven. I would have preferred to see them start with a lesser frequency of Crossrail - the game changer eleven car trains, which would make it easier to recovHowever, the biggest game changer in the south- er from any delays and would obviate the need to take east will be the long awaited Crossrail, or Elizabeth trains out of service to add two more cars at a later line. New trains began to appear between Liverpool date. Many of the stations are long enough to serve Street and Shenfield nearly 12 months ago, but they two pre-existing trains so using the full length of the run alongside the aged stock inherited by TfL Rail. platform is important.

Services to Heathrow were introduced with the May Despite these disappointments, the Elizabeth Line 2018 timetable. The biggest transformation was will eventually transform east-west travel across scheduled for December 2018, when the central tun- London, though the resultant hike in house prices will nel was scheduled to open adding trains from reduce still further the stock of what is “affordable”. n

Issue 108 January-March 2019

11

OPINION: DRAFT LONDON PLAN AND ITS VISION | MICHAEL BACH + SCRUTON | ELEANOR JOLLIFFE

What type of London does the London Plan suggest?

The lack of any strategic vision in the Draft London Plan is worrying says Michael Bach London Forum challenged Jules Pipe and James Murray two years ago to ask the question “What kind of London do Londoners want?” It was not the Johnson/Lister legacy of 510 tall buildings in the planning pipeline, scattered all over London – 90 per cent being residential towers. We reminded them that higher densities do not necessarily mean high rise, and reflected back to them quotations from “A City for All Londoners” about communities needing to be comfortable with the new developments in their neighbourhoods.

So what has happened? Even the current London Plan indicates the most appropriate locations for tall buildings. The draft London Plan provides no guidance whatsoever – it is left entirely to the boroughs, although the Mayor seems to be intervening in cases involving tall buildings, but often to encourage them to be larger.

Both London Forum and Sunand Prasad emphasised to the Greater London Assembly Planning Committee’s Scrutiny of the London Plan, that the

first criterion for assessing tall buildings should be their impact on the local community rather than just the physical environment. Somehow the London Plan team lost sight of the human dimension – the impact on people.

So what do Londoners want and how will they get it? Little effort has yet been made to help them envision what their future community could look like.

The public’s distrust of planners and, particularly, developers will be exacerbated by the so-called “design-led approach” in which developers and planners negotiate in private in pre-application discussions before the local community gets to hear about it.

The pass has long ago been sold by the time a scheme which “optimises” the use of these sites, producing the highest density that can be negotiated in a system which has few if any parameters to assess proposals against. Who will be looking after the community’s interests when all these “deals” are settled in private with no accountability for the outcome?

Michael Bach, London Forum of Civic and Amenity Societies

Communities are already concluding that, rather than fighting developers, they feel they are fighting the planners.

After the democratic deficit of Opportunity Areas, the London Plan’s small sites policy will become the next battleground. If we are to avoid this, we need to start co-designing the future for areas where growth is proposed to ensure that we can ensure that our legacy will be one in which local authorities really listened to what kind of London that Londoners want and planned to produce this, rather than a succession of speculative developments which people hate. n

Keep calm about Scruton Eleanor Jolliffe explains why architects should keep calm about the Scruton commission I’ve been following the furore around Roger Scruton and Kit Malthouse’s comments on architecture with interest. The Building Better Building Beautiful Commission is a lovely idea. Whether it will achieve anything is another matter. In fact I don’t disagree with Martyn Evans, writing in BD recently, that the BBBB Commission may well resolve itself to be “irrelevant and ineffective… just chatter on the wind”.

However, I think to limit the insights that can be gained from this spat to just the commission is rather missing an opportunity to understand how the architect’s place in construction and the public imagination is perceived.

Firstly, and most worryingly, a governmental commission (no matter how eventually effective) with the headline stated aim “to tackle the challenge of poor quality design and build of homes and places across the country” has been formed,

12

Planning in London

and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has researched and concluded that the most qualified person to head this commission is a philosopher.

It is easy to bemoan nepotism or ignorance but if we, as a profession, were effectively promoting and representing our actual role in construction – often as lead consultant – then philosopher might not have been the first profession that sprang to the minister’s mind.

Additionally, while I am a fan of the RIBA’s mission statement I cannot help but think they have failed in the execution of their stated aim of “advancing architecture” if they are or remain entirely absent from this discussion.

But was Malthouse actually wrong when he defended his courthouse/office block tweet by saying: “What we are dealing with is a really fractured and difficult argument where the architec-

Eleanor Jolliffe is an architect and freelance architecture writer

tural profession assumes it is under siege.”

Read the comments under any piece in the architectural press regarding this and ask: is he really so off-base? An immediate rush to the defensive or to attack the chosen commission leader is not going to foster a spirit of mutual cooperation or educated discussion. More likely our defensiveness will become a self-fulfilling prophesy. We will be left outside the discussion simply because we will not be worth the effort it

OPINION: DESIGN AND DENSITY | PETER EVERSDEN

LEFT: Communities are already concluding that, rather than fighting developers, they feel they are fighting the planners.

takes in engaging with us.

Malthouse further commented that the fractious debate had led to architects “retreating from embracing [the ‘British vernacular’]”. Of course this has as much to do with the preferences of clients and the policy objectives laid out by both local and national governments than the spite of the architect to “best” someone in a debate on style.

Malthouse’s assertions might be irritating but more seriously they point to the extent to which the architectural profession in its full team-working, patron-reliant reality has been supplanted in the popular imagination by the starchitect dictator creative to whom client and design team must answer and obey.

That Foster and Schumacher have been the

main architectural headlines of recent weeks with quixotic viewing platforms and fights over the control of vast fortunes does not help.

This is not the first time, and most likely will not be the last, that I have written about how poorly architects communicate beyond the bounds of our profession. My question still remains. At what point will our refusal to effectively confront this as a profession mean we are no longer anything but luxury window dressing for vanity projects that have money to waste?

I have the next 40 or 50 years of my professional life ahead of me and a career of window dressing on vanity projects is not something I intend to embrace. The architectural profession has so much value to offer and our role in creating

humane, liveable cities is one of the reasons I persevered through the over-long training.

I look forward with interest to the findings of the BBBB Commission, and to the policy advice that will allow “everyone” to “let architects rip”.

However, in the meantime perhaps the identity politics of “architects vs everyone” could be kept to a minimum.

If there is one thing the last couple of years has reinforced in my mind it is that identity politics has not proved the most successful model for driving policy.

Perhaps we can keep it clear of our housing? n First published in BDonline, with kind consent: https://www.bdonline.co.uk

Can design limit densification?

Will design considerations make densification acceptable? asks Peter Eversden The London Forum has expressed concerns about the draft replacement New London Plan and the way in which the Mayor’s density policies are proposed to be changed to allow more intensification of land use, particularly in outer London.

London Forum has reservations about a new design-led approach by the Mayor. Boroughs may not have the skills to specify design requirements in their plans nor to negotiate on design in new developments.

Good design can be significant in placemaking and in introducing change and higher densities in a way that respects local context and character and earns community approval but the design process needs strong Government and GLA support.

The draft replacement National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published recently and we looked critically to see how its policies describe the importance of design and support the Mayor’s new approach. We were disappointed.

The sections on ‘making efficient use of land’ and

www.planninginlondon.com

‘achieving well designed places’ are at the end of the document though we recommended they should be put before chapters on plan making and on the criteria for making decisions.

The policy to “use tools such as area-wide design assessments” is applied in the draft NPPF to small sites but should be required for any site.

The document has no references to placemaking, tall buildings, townscape or the urban skyline.

Its design paragraphs should be rewritten for high quality design to be a necessity and not just an advantage. It should require local authorities to have the appropriately qualified design staff; this should now be possible with increased planning application fees ring- fenced to planning and development control.

The draft NPPF or associated National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) needs to state how design requirements should be built into local site allocations and how design workshops and reviews should be resourced and conducted. Paragraph 125 in the

Peter Eversden chairs the London Forum of Civic and Amenity Societies

new draft is encouraging in this respect but should recommend the use of 3D visualisation.

Guidance could help local authorities to understand how design should be applied to higher density developments.

It is surprising that design is not included in the list of strategic policies in the draft NPPF paragraph 20. It should be additional to local authorities having “an overall strategy for the pattern and scale of development” which is the first policy.

An essential paragraph 56 on design in the current 2012 NPPF has been omitted in the new draft >>>

Issue 108 January-March 2019

13

OPINION: HOUSING DELIVERY | PAUL FINCH

The new criteria on design in the draft London Plan and NPPF might not be as effective as people hope and may not limit development density sufficiently.

>>> and should be restored. The words are “The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.”

It will take a while to see what will result from suggested changes to the draft New London Plan and the draft replacement NPPF and how London’s boroughs will use design in their planning and decision making. If they specify their design, height, density and infrastructure requirements for allocated sites

and areas and apply design reviews, it should give a justifiable basis for refusal of applications which do not conform to their development plan. Hopefully, they would be supported then by Inspectors where there are appeals. Essentially, Councils must engage communities in specifying design requirements. n

A Housing Delivery Authority Forget ‘beautiful buildings’ – the government should create a Housing Delivery Authority instead says Paul Finch The Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission, to be chaired by Roger Scruton, is the latest half-baked idea from Conservative politicians desperate to prove they are ‘doing something’ about the housing shortage. Flying a flag for ‘beauty’ (for which read Scruton’s beloved ‘Classicism’) has little chance of changing much.

Government doesn’t really care about building homes, whatever the latest nine-day-wonder housing minister says. We can make this assumption because there is no statutory requirement for any national body to actually build homes. There are agencies that may have such duties – for example development corporations – but of course their targets are not the same thing as delivery. Does anyone think, if targets were not met, that anyone would be punished?

The context for our lack of housing delivery is the billions spent on housing benefit. There is a statutory duty to house but not to build. You can couple that with the bizarre belief that, if they didn’t have to deal with pesky planning or building regulations, private housebuilders would be rushing to build a social housing programme. Left to themselves, they wouldn’t produce any ‘affordable’ homes, let alone social units – for understandable business reasons.

Government dogma – that everything will be OK if you leave it to the market, and if that doesn’t work then you just let local authorities borrow loads of money to fill the gap – is farcical. Half of our local authorities cannot in fact borrow money to build –

14

Planning in London

because they haven’t built the minimum number of homes (200) required before the appropriate borrowing account can be opened. You couldn’t make it up.

Sadly, the various bodies that governments of all persuasions have placed in charge of housing – the Housing Corporation, the Homes & Communities Agency and, most recently, Homes England – have rarely if ever directly built anything, preferring to concentrate on land assembly and trading; dishing out grants and telling us all what a great job they are doing. If they are so great, why are we in our current mess?

In reality our current condition cannot be blamed on the planning system as such (it is the same one we had when we were building a sufficiency), nor on building or fire regulations, nor on non-existent landhoarding by volume housebuilders. As the shrewd property and construction journalist Peter Bill has recently shown, the biggest housebuilders have increased output considerably in recent years. It has made no difference to the net shortage.

Let’s face it, unless you have a public-sector-led housing procurement programme, you will never hit the necessary targets, particularly in London.

Conservative governments and local authorities never had a problem with this until quite recently.

Their reluctance to embrace public-sector housing occurred at precisely the time when, for reasons including inward migration, demand was inexorably rising. We should have made it illegal for local author-

Paul Finch OBE is editorial director of the AJ and AR and joint publishing editor of Planning in London

ities not to build.

Housing secretary James Brokenshire (appropriate name) would have done better to create a body whose statutory duty was to build homes. It could be based on the Olympic Delivery Authority, which created the impressive Olympic Village in Stratford where it owned land and had planning powers and an appropriate budget.

Why can’t we have a Housing Delivery Authority, chaired by a heavyweight who understands construction delivery, in which public land could be vested, and which would be measured (and rewarded) not for speeches or planning permissions, but for completions?

The authority could adopt the AJ’s unbeatable campaign slogan ‘More homes, better homes’. This has nothing to do with the aesthetic preferences of people who have never built anything. n First published in the Architects’ Journal, with kind consent: https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk

OPINION: SCRUTON (AGAIN) | BEN TAYLOR

Feeding the scepticism of experts Scruton’s wrong, but new housing already bares an unsettling resemblance to his ideals suggests Ben Taylor There was a foreseeable backlash to the appointment of Roger Scruton to chair Building Better, Building Beautiful, the government’s new commission into the style of housing and neighbourhoods.

Both his personal views – which many justifiably consider incompatible with a tolerant modern world – and his retrogressive outlook on architecture have led to calls for him to step down.

However, if the architectural profession rejects Scruton as reactionary, it is perhaps worth asking if housing today is really different from what he’s calling for.

True: as an appeal for what new housing should be, Scruton’s logic is wilfully naïve. If homes were ‘beautiful’ (that is, traditional; that is, evoked the myth of a bucolic and morally superior folk-England) then incumbent communities would be less bothered about development in their back yards and we’d have an easier time dealing with the housing crisis.

Squint your eyes though and read it as an observation on how housing is already procured. It becomes an apt critique on the conservative aesthetic tendencies adopted by architecture to grease its way through the commercial and political hoops that come before it.

Scruton’s crusade for the aesthetic supremacy of traditionalism is half-dressed as an appeal for architects to engage with the wishes of communities. If they could only get over their ‘obstinate prejudice’, he argues – despite also being ‘neutered’ by developers – they’d find all the public want is (traditional)

buildings that ‘fit in’ with their (traditional) surroundings. Scruton ignores, however, that community consultation is already a critical part of the design process which can easily be terminal for a project, and so commands formidable fees for consultants. He overlooks too the widely deployed planning maxim that development must be visually in-keeping, through which stylistic compliance is further implemented.

This, and the vague notion that traditional-looking homes better hold their value, has led to most new housing becoming simply extruded rectangles, garbed in some aesthetic motif lifted from their surroundings. The visible result – especially in London and especially at density – has been a drift towards a bricky ersatz-Georgianism: reactionary enough to get through planning; orthogonal enough to be loosely considered contemporary. Although there have been flashes of brilliance among these, it remains that – stylistically at least – most new housing is far more conservative than architects would like to admit.

Scruton appeals to the past because he sees in it a cultural authenticity he can’t identify in the present. And judging by much of the housing built today, he’s not alone. The irony is that the vernacular building traditions he celebrates are not timeless and enduring but inventive and dialectical, adapting to shifting cultural, environmental and technological circumstances. Yes, aesthetics factored; but the resulting buildings would have been made above all for their use value, not as the surrogates for historical capital Scruton sees them for. In this sense, there is much

Ben Taylor is an urban designer with Hawkins\Brown

that contemporary housing could learn from its ancestry. Consider, then, that the government is aiming for 300,000 homes to be built each year, a large enough number to form a significant chapter in the history of planning in the UK. A centralised inquest into which style they should be entirely misses the point. Whether ‘traditional’ or following current trends, at such a scale they risk laying a blanket of homogeneity over the capital.

Like the vernacular dwellings Scruton valorises but misunderstands, the commission could have been a chance to encourage inventiveness without jettisoning familiarity. Instead, absorbed by style, it looks to be a disappointing missed opportunity. Of course, if the government valued a discussion about housing it might seem self-defeating to place a figure as dogmatic as Scruton at the helm. But really, Scruton is simply on-message. He appeals to the same audience – those who would see Britain adhere aesthetically to a jingoistic fantasy – in the same way a cartoon character is used to sell fast food.

There are no surprises here, just deliberate misdirection. By exploiting Scruton’s claim that the shortage of homes results from the self-absorbed arrogance of architects and enabling planners, the government is absolving itself of its failed experiment in levering housebuilding onto the private sector that has so exacerbated the housing crisis. Feeding the undiminished scepticism of experts, Building Better, Building Beautiful is therefore a wilful abdication of responsibility – ironically the core virtue for which Scruton champions conservativism. n This article was first published in the 2018 magazine of the Cambridge University Land Society, with kind consent: www.culandsoc.com

LEFT Sketch by architect Robert Adam from his book The 7 Sins of Architects

www.planninginlondon.com

Issue 108 January-March 2019

15

OPINION: BUILDING UP | MANI KHIROYA

Shouting from the rooftops Mani Khiroya says the only way is UP As the capital continues to face a chronic housing shortage, over the past few years we have been subject to a plethora of suggestions to help increase housing delivery. From expediting the disposal of public land, to micro apartments, modular housing or Sadiq Khan’s recent £10m Homebuilding Capacity Fund, there is no shortage of ideas on the table.

Elsewhere, many argue that London needs to ‘look up’ in regards to delivering more tall buildings, drawing on similarly dense cities like Hong Kong and New York for inspiration. However, ‘looking up’ in my opinion should also refer to assessing the capital’s existing rooftops, which according to a Knight Frank report have potential to support up to 40,000 new homes through ‘air rights’ development.

Air rights refer to the air space above an existing property, whether commercial, mixed-use or residential, which can be acquired and used to further develop it. This ranges from the extension of a current home, the creation of an entirely new apartment or the development of many dwellings.

This is an innovative way of unlocking potential to deliver much needed housing in dense areas. Tesco already has its wheels in motion, by planning to sell off the air rights above its superstores and carparks, having identified 20 sites across London capable of providing around 9,000 units. Elsewhere, Capital & Regional has secured permission to build 460 homes on top of Walthamstow Mall, while heavyweight industrial specialist SEGRO is looking at a number of opportunities in London to build on top of industrial units.

However, it’s not just the big players that can get involved. Freeholders of more modest buildings, whether they are pubs, offices or residential blocks,

are increasingly entering into partnerships with smaller developers to unlock their own air rights. In fact, this type of development is often better suited to such developers who are innovative and agile – the types that can’t compete for 150 unit brownfield regeneration sites but can add significant value to smaller plots in a relatively short space of time.

However, to be successful, the developer needs significant expertise including in-depth knowledge of planning, legal matters and construction.

On that note, improved technology is proving paramount to the rise of air rights, with modern construction methods and materials facilitating faster and more cost efficient builds, resulting in less disruption to those within the building be it retailer or resident. In many cases, with a carefully phased build programme and regular, transparent communication the work can take place with the tenant insitu. This was the case at our project with Young’s Brewery in West London; we were able to develop the air rights above an existing pub with the business able to remain fully operational during the construction period.

How does it work? In most instances the freeholder (whether single entity or collection of leaseholders) and developer will first enter into an option agreement. It is vital that the stakeholders take a collaborative approach when working together, with the developer taking time to understand the needs of the parties involved to ensure the delivery of an appropriate solution. Having the option agreement in place, the developer then has the time to achieve planning permission for the proposed solution, whether a single or several dwellings, before formally acquiring the air rights. As well as a substantial payment to the freeholder for the rights, the process also LEFT: The View, on top of Messenger Court, a block in Putney. Prices start at £500,000. Part of The View was paid for by crowdfunding — £622,000 was raised from 77 donors.

16

Planning in London

Mani Khiroya is managing director at Fruition Properties

usually involves negotiating improvements to the building’s exterior and interior, such as an enhanced facade, better insulation, updated common areas or even a pro-rata contribution to service charge costs.

In turn this can have a significant uplift on the building’s overall value, while also benefiting the existing residents who would have otherwise not been able to afford such improvements.

At a recent project on Upper Richmond Road in Putney, where we created four new apartments on top of an existing residential block, the leaseholders benefited from new cycle and bin storage, post boxes and a new audio-visual entry system to create an integrated facility for the new and existing leaseholders. There has also been an update in parking arrangements, re-tarmacing of the approach roads, and improved landscaping of the gardens which has been funded through their air rights payment. Finally, the existing residents will benefit in the longer term from sharing building service costs with these additional leaseholders, thereby reducing their annual service charge by 25 per cent. As you can see, this provides a win-win approach for all parties.

So what next for air rights?

The good news is that policy makers are starting to embrace this potential. The revised National Planning Policy Framework document gives support in principle to extensions above existing residential and commercial premises for new homes, stating that development of up to two additional storeys would be looked upon favourably as long as it is in keeping with the surrounding area. Sajid Javid has commented that the move would "encourage developers to be more innovative and look at opportunities to build upwards where possible when delivering the homes the country needs.”

More recently, the Budget announced that consultation has opened on extending permitted development rights for rooftop extensions.

So what are we waiting for? From my perspective, it looks as if the only way is up. n

OPINION: THE RULE OF ST BENEDICT | PETER WOLTON

Workspace, WeWork, The White Collar Factory and St. Benedict Co-working, shared serviced office space, Workspace, WeWork, and The White Collar Factory. What might these have in common with a set of guidelines 1500 years old? asks Peter Wolton The “Rule of St. Benedict”, written in around 530AD, remains astonishingly relevant for all organisations, not just religious ones. It emphasises Work, Community, Hospitality and underpinning all this is Prayer. It, also for those with “ears to hear” has much to say about effective leadership.

The fact that it has stood the test of time and has spawned many books such as the recent “Doing business with Benedict”1 is testament to a wisdom that can appeal to people of all faiths and none. It has allowed countless generations to understand both enterprise and the Gospel.

The Rule is a manual of instruction with short chapters that underpin the life of the Benedictine monastic order. Today 1400 communities of Benedictine and Cistercian men and women live under this rule plus innumerable lay persons.

The two key attributes to the Rule are flexibility and balance. St. Benedict learnt the hard way. He wanted to be a hermit but such was his draw that people were attracted to him and wanted to live alongside him.

What could be worse for a hermit! So austere did he become, that those around him tried to poison him. After his escape, Benedict became a man of humility, prayer and an appreciation of the need for flexibility. He accepted the call to be a monk and a leader.

www.planninginlondon.com

In April 2018 I attended a real estate conference organised by Peel Hunt which included visits to coworking properties. How different to the inspections of office blocks on 25 year leases that I used to undertake as a Savills graduate trainee in the late 1970s. And what a buzzy atmosphere: excellent coffee and food, small cellular (monastic?) work stations for the Fintech executives – all of which made me reflect on St Benedict.

The co-working office places great emphasis on Reception with staff trained in the art of welcome. St. Benedict was wise to this too. Chapter 66, “Doorkeeper of the Monastery” sets out the eternal

The Rule not only brings people together, but somehow enables them to stay together skills of a good receptionist. “The person will need a room near the entrance so that visitors will always find someone to greet them.” He continues “As soon as anyone knocks or calls out, the doorkeeper replies: “Thanks be to God” or “Your blessing please.” Then with all the gentleness that comes from utter piety, the doorkeeper will provide a prompt answer with the warmth of love.”

St. Benedict wrote “The monastery should, if possible, be so constructed that within it all necessities are contained and various crafts may be practised.”

Reflecting this, co-working properties provide a range of services to ease the working day, including concierge facilities, excellent coffee and food, a bar, a gym and in the case of Derwent London’s White Collar Factory, a rooftop running track.

Landlords set out to help enterprise flourish and build community in the gathering areas and more formally. Club Workspace offers “like-minded business people (to meet) in an atmosphere designed for ideas to grow into long term successful business models.”

St. Benedict believed in the importance of enterprise. “Idleness is the enemy of the soul. Therefore, all the community should have specified periods of manual labour as well as for prayerful reading.”

In addition to flexibility, another hallmark of the

Peter Wolton is Assistant Priest at the United Benefice of Holland Park

Rule is not straightjacketing people. Regarding food (Chapter 39), Benedict writes “Two kinds of food are to be provided to allow for personal weakness. In this way, those who may not be able to eat one kind of food may partake of the other.” And regarding drink he continues, most famously: “ “Each of us has a special gift from God, one this and another that” (1 Corinthians 7.7). It is therefore, with some uneasiness, that we specify the amount of food and drink for others. However, with due regard for the infirmities of the sick, we believe that half a bottle of wine a day is sufficient for each. But those to whom God gives strength to abstain must know that they will earn their own reward.”

New patterns of working and of leases have become a feature of the office market since the Millennium. The recognition of the need for flexibility of tenure and the growth of a more entrepreneurial culture is, perhaps, a response to the aftermath of the 2008 banking crisis. Landlords have learnt that alignment with the needs of tenants is of benefit to both sides.

All of which mirrors one commentator on Benedict: “The Rule not only brings people together, but somehow enables them to stay together.” n 1

Doing business with Benedict – Continuum 2002

First published in the 2018 Magazine of the Cambridge University Land Society with kind consent: https://www.culandsoc.com

With due regard for the infirmities of the sick, we believe that half a bottle of wine a day is sufficient for each

Issue 108 January-March 2019

17

OPINION: LAND VALUE CAPTURE | STEPHENÂ ASHWORTH

Capturing commonsense Land value capture, or right pricing, and compensation tweaks are not panaceas.

Local solutions will be required, argues Stephen Ashworth We should start 2019 with a commitment to truth and commonsense. Much of the debate about 'value capture' is ill informed. Here are three ways in which a little more honesty might help.

First, the term 'value capture' is misleading. The notion of capture suggests that something has been taken away. The term should be set aside and we should instead talk about "right pricing" land. If planning permission is granted for development then it should be conditional on it meeting all appropriate standards. Development should contribute to the infrastructure demands that it creates.

It should be well designed and sustainable. It should help to secure mixed and balanced communities, and make an appropriate affordable housing contribution. It should help to make great places.

Permission should not be granted without obligations to meet the requirements where they have been properly tested. Planning policies should be used to make these requirements transparent, and capable of being challenged through the local plan process.

Once settled those policies should then be reflected in land values. The RICS guidance and the NPPG each already recognise that land should be valued assuming that any development meets local plan requirements. Land should then be 'right priced' to a residual value that fully reflects the costs of development. Since permission should not normally be granted without meeting the plan policy requirements, there is no greater value than the right price of land. Nothing has been lost. Nothing has been captured.

The second canard is that for large scale developments, particularly for new garden communities, there needs to be a change to the 1961 Land Compensation Act compensation provisions to allow land to be acquired at sensible values, by compulsory acquisition if necessary.

There have been suggestions that it is necessary to disregard "hope value" or that land for major new schemes should be acquired at existing use values.

Both approaches, and the justifications for them, are simply wrong. The fundamental principle underlying CPO compensation is that of 'equivalence'. A landowner whose land is expropriated should receive market value for the land taken.

www.planninginlondon.com

If the land being acquired is land that would, in the absence of a CPO, be developed then the 'hope' of that redevelopment should, quite properly, be reflected in the market value. However, hope value is fragile and changes to reflect local plan policies. If properly tested, adopted policies are clear about the quality and legacy requirements associated with providing new communities then, together with the costs of infrastructure, affordable housing, place etc. that should be reflected in the market value. For large scale developments importantly the need for comprehensive master-planning should mean that the long term nature of the development, and the need for equalisation, will be taken into account in the market value. The land will be 'right priced'.

All of this assumes that the land would actually have been capable of being developed in the absence of Government, national or local, intervention. If

There have been suggestions that it is necessary to disregard "hope value" or that land for major new schemes should be acquired at existing use values. Both approaches, and the justifications for them, are simply wrong there is no real hope of the land being developed without intervention then the market value, and any CPO compensation will reflect the "no scheme" world assumption at the heart of the CPO process.

That says, for example, that the prospect of a proposed new settlement, that can only be delivered with intervention, should be ignored for the purpose of valuation.

In most cases, absent other development prospects, the value of the land will then broadly be the existing use value. As a consequence there is no need to create a false basis for compensation in order for new communities to proceed. Indeed, doing so would increase land owner resistance since they

Stephen Ashworth is a partner in Dentons UK and Middle East LLP

would lose, on sale to a public body, the value they would receive privately.

The third myth is that, somehow, changes to planning policy and to the compensation regime are enough by themselves to make new settlements viable around the country. That is not true. New settlements have high land and infrastructure costs.

Those costs are largely upfront.

A genuine garden community needs investment, from the outset, in stewardship mechanisms and future legacy arrangements. Some of those can be offset by the ability of a new community developer to drive higher build out rates throughout economic cycles at better levels than those with smaller sites and shorter programmes.

However, despite this, in many parts of the country privately led large new garden communities are simply not viable without different delivery models and very patient capital, possibly including government funding. They will have to adopt different approaches to, for example, affordable housing, reflecting local needs rather than focussing on headline percentage targets.

They will, probably, need to be more astutely sited, taking advantage of existing infrastructure capacity, perhaps being more closely related to existing settlements than might otherwise be the case.

They may also have to cut 'new town deals' so that the revenue generated by the new towns in terms of SDLT, council tax, business rates etc., that normally passes to the Treasury, is retained and recycled locally. We need to be careful not to treat value capture, or right pricing, and compensation tweaks as panaceas. They are not. Local solutions will be required.

If the New Year starts with us standing on a platform of truth in these three areas at least then we will all benefit. n

Issue 108 January-March 2019

19

NXXX

Tuesday 19th March at Dentons, One Fleet Place London EC4M 7RA 1.30 FOR 2.00pm followed by drinks

Annual Planning Update Housing and new settlements: The CaMKoX Arc

In association with

Supported by

Media partner

Keynote: The Government’s agenda for planning

by Steve Quartermain (MHCLG Chief Planner) Followed at 6.00pm by Networking reception sponsored by Dentons BOOK AT: https://www.culandsoc.com or call 01638 507843 The full programme will be available early February

20

Planning in London

Graphic ŠInside Housing

NEIL PARKYN

...and the Winner is You can be bloody minded and still win. This is exactly as it should be says Neil Parkyn

Architects love Awards. It’s not so much getting a Big Hug from Mum or sliding the citation into an IKEA frame, but rather the triumphant end of a journey which began when the client-to-be sat in your lobby and clocked the wall of award certificates, like a general’s chest full of medals. With luck, and a talented architect, you Mr Client could be up there as well.

But first you’ll need to navigate the current plethora of available Awards. Not at all a simple matter of being up for the Stirling Prize or a RIBA Regional Award. The choice is as wide as the components of a building. Fancy the prize for Best-Use-of-aDoor-Closer-in-a-Publc-Building? I’m serious, such is the fragmention of the Awards ‘system’; so-called ‘Awards’ based on the use of a specific product seldom take note of the overall excellence of the building in its context and its response to the client brief.

Rather like Hollywood, you can get an Oscar for Door Closers, as for Hair Design.

You can also be deceived in assuming that the Big Boys on the architectural scene don’t often win Awards. I was about to note the absence of Lords Foster and Rogers from the national Awards, but this simply isn’t the case; they are often up there as well, alongside those bijou practices who design remarkable buildings without fuss or fame and tend to be well regarded by judges who are seeking Young Talent.

www.planninginlondon.com

My own experience as a one-time judge for several of these Awards is that the panel – all volunteers – take their mission seriously. The list of candidate buildings is comprehensive and, in true Booker Prize fashion, much argued over. (You can even get odds from your friendly neighbourhood bookie). A day of visits is packed and intense, as well as stimulating and cheering to stand in front of and enter buildings of real quality. Funny how you can very rapidly get a feel for an Award candidate – comments from the clients, buzz from the classrooms, wonderful views framed by the fenestration, even the details of a built-in cabinet. Yet come dusk, one is rather hoping for a tincture or two!

In this context it’s worth referring to the Civic Trust Awards which I know first hand as being wider ranging than the usual crop of gongs. For starters, the Awards team always includs a staff member from the Local Planning Authority, who fills in the planning context as well as a Lay Assessor who offers invalu-

Neil Parkyn is a retired architect-planner living in France. A former member of RTPI and RSA Councils, he was a director of Colin Buchanan and Partners.

able guidance of how the candidate building or public realm scheme had bedded down and was viewed

by Joe Public. This all leads to a rounded discussion at the end of the day at which the overall quality of each scheme was assessed. In the end it was all down to me, but I felt more confident and decisive with this supporting background in place. I would be very sad to see these Awards come to an end. We would see no more of those distinctive triangular plaques on winning walls.

This spectrum is also covered by the RTPI’s Awards for Planning Excellence, a long established scheme which rewards quality and initiative across the full spectre of planning activity. No one would doubt that such excellence deserves public and peer recognition.

For the architect there remains a telling ambiguity. While many an architectural Award winner falls neatly into a supportive planning context, others defy it with designs which challenge it. You can be bloody minded and still win. This is exactly as it should be. n

Victor Ludorum Not so Glittering Prizes ...and the Winner is Top of the Form

>>>

Issue 108 January-March 2019

21

REPORT | OFFICE LETTINGS AT A RECORD/ CITY VISION 2026

BRIEFING Last year, the amount of offices let across the City of London and West End totalled 12.6 million sq ft – the highest level of take-up in 20 years sector and 19 per cent is from the technology and creative industries.

While the mood music around a hard Brexit has picked up pace, it’s apparent that office-based employment in London will grow for the foreseeable future. Businesses are more cautious than they were, but larger companies are planning through the period of uncertainty and taking a view that London remains a major part of their European and global networks regardless of Brexit.

Source: Savills Research: City Office Market Watch n

City vision 2026

City vision if all permitted schemes are built: aerial view looking west: source GMJ and City of London Corporation

With UK business confidence remaining comparatively weak since the EU referendum, it would be reasonable to assume that demand for London office space would be cooling.

However, while take-up of central London offices did fall year-on-year in 2016, 2017 and 2018 have been very different. .

Another sign of confidence in London is the type of companies taking space and the length of commitment. 2017’s largest letting in the City – 564,000 sq ft at 21 Moorfields to Deutsche Bank – was significant on two levels: a German bank committed to a large new HQ, and it did so on a pre-let of a building that won’t be delivered until 2021.

Given that much of the post-referendum speculation has focused on the prospects of jobs in banking and financial services leaving London, it may also come as a surprise that businesses from that sector acquired 2.4 million sq ft of office space in central London last year, 15 per cent of the total. Other acquisitive sectors were the serviced office providers (19 per cent of the total) and creative and technology businesses (26 per cent).

2018 has seen take-up levels maintained, with

22

Planning in London

the volume of offices leased in the City and West End reaching 5.6 million sq ft at the half year; marginally up on the same point last year. But this year’s seen a slightly different tone around who’s driving demand.

During the first six months, the largest deal in the City was 600,000 sq ft at Royal Mint Court for the new Chinese Embassy. This made the public sector the largest acquirer of offices, although insurance and financial services companies have also taken 825,000 sq ft of space (21 per cent of the total).

In the West End, the rise of the global tech titans continued with Facebook’s pre-let of 600,000 sq ft in King’s Cross. Once it, Google, Amazon and Apple move into all the space they’ve acquired recently they’ll occupy more than 4 million sq ft in central London. What’s perhaps more important is that the majority of this space has been acquired since the referendum.

Looking ahead, the story appears equally positive.

Currently there are active requirements for more than 7.2 million sq ft of offices from companies as diverse as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Merck, and Samsung. Some 34 per cent of this demand is from the banking and financial

The City of London Corporation has released images of how the City cluster skyline will look in 2026 after all the consented buildings in the pipeline have been completed (LEFT).

Five buildings over 30 storeys are currently under construction in the Square Mile, with a further five consented by planners.

Eric Parry’s 1 Undershaft would be the tallest building, standing 10m above PLP’s 22 Bishopsgate – which is under construction by Multiplex and due to finish this year. It is unclear when 1 Undershaft, which received planning consent in 2016, will be built.

New in this year’s visualisation is SOM’s 100 Leadenhall which received planning permission in July and would stand 32m below 22 Bishopsgate.

Its developers say it will be take four years to build, with tenant leases on the existing building expiring in 2023 – but have vowed to begin whenever they achieve vacant possession.

The pictures come as the City of London consults on its 25-year local plan which would require new developments to contain a “greening element” such as a planted wall or sedum roof.

It is also looking at how to close the gap between the Walkie Talkie and the towers of the so-called eastern cluster. It will announce its decision in the spring.

The corporation is also consulting on a strategy to prioritise pedestrians and improve public realm in the Square Mile which will demand new walking routes through major developments to make the City more permeable. n

BRIEFING: PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS | RIETTE OOSTHUIZEN AND SIMON OWEN

Build up but build well In tandem with the Autumn Budget, the Government launched a consultation on planning reforms to increase housing delivery and address the poor state of high streets, write Riette Oosthuizen and Simon Owen of HTA Design. The intention is to: “…make the most effective use of existing buildings both for business and residential use”. The benefits are evident: it will lessen pressure to build on the green belt, and back gardens, and hopefully offer a lifeline to failing town centres.

New permitted development rights are proposed to allow existing premises in ‘typical high street uses’ to change to a wider range of uses, such as leisure and community uses, including gyms, libraries, health care, office use or homes (the latter applies only to use class A5, hot food takeaways).

Subject to prior approval, new permitted development rights are proposed to allow additional storeys

www.planninginlondon.com

The government suggests once again that the Use Classes Order might be amended in relation to the various Class A uses. This might involve the amalgamation or adjustment of some of the existing town centre uses (A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5)

above certain buildings in commercial and residential use. The emphasis is on delivering additional new self-contained homes, not simply additional habitable rooms. The Government is inviting views on how this development right might be best used in practice and how the use of local design codes could help to encourage the take up of the proposed rights, whilst improving design quality.

Encouraging a greater variety of uses within high streets is certainly a positive move, although prohibitive rents charged by landlords in certain high streets might prohibit some of the premises used for community or leisure uses if this ‘permitted development right’ is not also supported by site allocations or local plan policies. It is slightly disappointing that there is an ‘or’ included in the range of temporary use class changes that would be allowed. Many of London’s lively high street uses have premises where there is a

variety of uses within one space. ‘Maker spaces’, for example, could cross the boundaries of retail, manufacturing and eating/dining.

HTA Design has long advocated the vast potential of London’s rooftops to deliver additional housing: in a study undertaken for Apex Airspace in 2016, the capacity of residential rooftop development across London was calculated in the region of 180,000 new homes. The principle of rooftop development is widely regarded as a logical step in boosting housing supply.

There is a question around whether permitted development rights to achieve additional housing supply will lead to good quality homes. As such, it is positive that a focus on design quality is contained within the consultation. As expected the Raynsford Review has largely condemned the poor quality of some homes created as a result of the permitted >>>

Issue 108 January-March 2019

23

BRIEFING: PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS | MARTIN GOODALL

>>> development rights of offices to residential. National space standards are not adhered to, usable outdoor space is not provided, and there is no requirement to provide affordable housing, for which there is a desperate need. There is also a definite need for careful consideration of design implications relating to permitted development rights for upwards extensions.

Implications for roof and streetscape could be disastrous if there is a free for all. It is also important that there should be some consideration of existing residents’ amenity and possibly compensation for disruption. The consultation document acknowledges that there are issues that will need to be considered: siting, appearance of the upward extension, its impact on the amenity and character of the area and also the impact of the development on the amenity of neighbouring premises. These elements suggest that a new permitted development right will still be complex.

As planning consultants and architects, we find that small scale schemes in suburban areas attract more objections than many larger schemes. This means that upward extensions in existing residential areas where there aren’t already taller buildings adjacent will probably be quite unpopular. The prior approval process would need to ensure that an extra floor or more on an existing building would be subject to detailed assessments.

Impacts normally assessed by planning applications would still need to be considered in the prior approval process – such as overlooking, overshadowing and daylight/sunlight. Whether a proposed upwards extension fits in architecturally with an existing building and the local context would need to be judged as part of the prior approval process – property owners wouldn’t normally want to blight their building with a devaluing ugly extension. Design codes could assist but would require local authorities to be prepared and to commit resources. There can be no excuse for creating a system where extending a building will provide substandard homes – from the inside or the outside. n

Riette Oosthuizen is head of planning at HTA Design LLP

24

Planning in London

Consultation on further expansion of PD rights As noted above, coinciding with the Autumn budget, MHCLG published a detailed consultation paper which proposes various extensions to existing PD rights, plus some new ones, some of which may prove to be extremely controversial. It is for this reason that I am not getting too excited about these suggested changes at the moment, writes Martin Goodall..

Local planning authorities have never been happy with the significant widening in the scope of permitted development under the GPDO since 2013, particularly those provisions that permit various residential conversions. However, as the government points out, in 2016/17 alone, permitted development rights provided nearly 18,900 new homes, 8.5% of the total number of net additions delivered.

Perhaps the two most contentious proposals in the consultation paper are those that relate to the upward extension of existing buildings to create additional new homes, and the suggested creation of a PD right to allow the demolition of existing commercial buildings, so that their sites can be redeveloped for housing.

Upward extensions What the government is proposing is a new PD right, subject to prior approval by the LPA, to allow additional storeys to be built above certain buildings, in particular those in commercial or residential (C3) use. A number of issues would need to be considered, including height limits. For example, this PD right could apply to the airspace above premises in a terrace of two or more joined properties where there is at least one higher building in the terrace.

The roof of the premises extending upward would be no higher than the main roofline of the highest building in the existing terrace. This would have the advantage of providing a fixed local point against which any proposal could be considered and offer greater certainty on what is permitted. An alternative approach would be to permit upward extensions more widely to a height no higher than the prevailing roof height in the locality. While this may extend the proposed right to a greater number of properties, it would not be possible to define prevailing roofline in regulations; it would be a matter to be considered by the local authority as part of the prior approval.

Martin Goodall is a planning solicitor with Keystone Law

In doing so, the local authority would be able to define what it considered to be the prevailing roofline taking account of the local building types and heights and the extent of the area over which it should be determined. But his may offer less certainty to the applicant.

Local amenity impacts would have to be considered when reviewing a proposal to construct additional storeys. The government is therefore proposing that there should be a maximum limit of 5 storeys from ground level for a building once extended, with anything higher requiring a planning application. (This would be based on an additional storey not exceeding 3 metres in height.) There would also be potential issues where premises are not on level ground. The impact of adding additional storeys in these cases could be significantly greater on the amenity of neighbouring premises, for example from overlooking and overshadowing and on the character of the area.

The government would also like a permitted development right to apply to purpose built, freestanding blocks of flats (within Use Class C3) over 5 storeys in height would provide an opportunity to deliver additional new homes through upwards extensions, but it would have to be determined whether there should be a limit on the number of additional storeys that could be added.

The government proposes that upward extensions should be permitted on premises in a range of uses that are compatible with C3 residential use.

These could include existing C3 residential premises, those high street uses that can already change use to housing under a permitted development right (shops (A1), financial and professional services (A2), restaurants and cafes (A3), betting shops, pay day loan shops and launderettes (which are sui generis), offices (B1 (a)), and buildings in mixed use within these uses.

The government also wants to explore whether there may also be other buildings whose use is compatible with the introduction of new homes. Given that they are usually located in residential areas or high streets, would premises such as health centres and buildings

BRIEFING: PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS

used for community and leisure purposes be suitable for inclusion in the permitted development right? It is suggested that out-of-town retail parks with a mix of shopping and leisure uses may also be suitable for upward extensions to provide additional homes. The permitted development right would need to allow for the physical works required to construct or install additional storeys on a building.

These could include works to strengthen existing walls, engineering works to strengthen existing foundations to support the additional storeys and works to provide safe access and escape for any additional new homes within the building’s footprint.

Separately it could also allow for works within the curtilage where it is necessary for access to the additional new homes.

The government does not propose to define particular physical works to allow for the varied nature of what might be required. There would, however, be a prior approval in relation to the nature and impacts of the works. (There would still, as always, be a requirement to comply with other legislation, and with the Building Regulations and Fire Regulations, the Party Wall Act, etc.)

Prior Approval would be required for these upward extensions. These would include matters such as flooding and contamination risks, transport and highways and the impact of additional new homes on existing occupiers and businesses, especially those that create noise and odours which may be a statutory nuisance. Prior approval would apply the “agent of change” principle, set out in paragraph 182 of the NPPF, to ensure the introduction of housing could be integrated effectively with existing business and community uses, and to consider mitigation measures for the potential impacts on new residents and existing businesses.

The prior approval would also assess the impacts of any works external to the building and within the curtilage, including fire escapes. Prior approval would also require consideration of the design, siting and appearance of the upward extension and its impact on the amenity and character of the area, taking account of the form of neighbouring properties. This may include considering whether the proposed development is of good design, adds to the overall quality of the area over its lifetime, is visually attractive as a result of good architecture, responds to the local character and history of the area and maintains a strong sense of place, as set out in paragraph

www.planninginlondon.com

127 of the NPPF. But the government expects prior approval on design to be granted where the design is in keeping with the existing design of the building (a warning shot across the bows of planning authorities!). Prior approval would also consider the impact of the development on the amenity of neighbouring premises, for example, from obscuring existing windows, reducing access to light or resulting in unacceptable impact on neighbours’ privacy from overlooking. It would also consider measures to mitigate these impacts, and enable the neighbours, including owners and occupiers of premises impacted, to comment on the proposal. There would be an application fee calculated per extra dwelling created, to recognise the range and complexity of issues for local authority consideration.

An additional idea, which seems to have been almost an afterthought, is that the proposed right to build upwards might possibly be drafted so as to allow householders to extend their own homes.

However, the consultation simply throws the idea open for discussion and asks whether the PD right for upward extension of a dwelling should allow for the enlargement of an existing home and, if so, what considerations should apply.

Demolition of commercial buildings and replacement with housing In the Autumn Budget of 2017 the government committed to consulting on introducing a permitted development right that would allow the demolition of commercial buildings and their replacement with residential development.

The government now suggests that a PD right focused on smaller sites may be more practical. For example, in formulating such a PD right it might be necessary to consider the size of the site; the height and density of new buildings; the existing use of the site, the relationship with local plan policies for key sites and areas where the right should apply.

This would be subject to prior approval (possibly requiring the wider range of matters mentioned above to be considered than under current PD rights, including any necessary mitigation measures).

Higher application fees would probably be payable.

There may well be a demand from LPAs that this extended PD right should include a requirement for the provision of, or contributions towards, affordable housing in such cases.

The right to erect phone boxes as PD might be ended

Change of use from storage or distribution (B8) to residential Class P in Part 3 introduced a PD right for change of use from storage or distribution (within certain limits) to residential use in 2015 for a period of three years. The right was extended in April 2018 for a further 14 months. At present Class P allows applicants to secure prior approval on or before 10 June 2019, and gives those with prior approval three years from the prior approval date in which to complete the change of use. The government now proposes that this PD right should be made permanent and that the existing conditions, including the matters requiring prior approval, should remain unchanged.

The consultation document does not, however, mention any intention to extend or make permanent the current PD right under Class PA for the residential conversion of light industrial buildings. This PD right is currently due to expire on 30 September 2020. Maybe this will be something for consideration by the government next year (assuming they are still in office at that time).

Larger extensions to dwellinghouses The permitted development right for larger extensions to dwellinghouses, introduced in 2013, was originally intended to be purely temporary, but in 2014 this PD right was extended for three years, to May 2019. In view of its continuing popularity, the government now proposes that the right should be made permanent. The existing conditions would remain unchanged, but where prior approval of larger extensions is required under these rules, the government proposes to introduce an application fee of £96.

Public call boxes and advertisements This is a subject that has proved to be controver- >>>

Issue 108 January-March 2019

25

BRIEFING: BUDGET 2018 | DUNCAN FIELD

>>> sial, and so the government is now consulting on the possibility that the right to erect phone boxes as PD might be ended. There is also a closely connected issue regarding advertising displayed on these boxes, and so an amendment of the Control of Advertisement Regulations is also on the cards.

Changes to the Use Classes Order?

Almost as an aside, the government suggests once again in this consultation paper that the UCO might be amended in relation to the various Class A uses. This might involve the amalgamation or adjustment of some of the existing town centre uses (A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5). It isn’t a new idea, and has been mentioned several times in the past. The lack of any definite suggestions in the consultation paper, and the fact that it gets no more than a passing mention, suggests that it is still not at the forefront of ministerial thinking. As long ago as 2015, the government also noted that they really ought to do something about consolidating the much-amended 1987 Use Classes Order but, what with one thing and another, they still haven’t got around to it.

So the overall reaction to the consultation paper must be “Watch this space” - we shall have to wait and see what emerges following the end of the current consultation period on 14 January. Some of the less controversial proposals could come forward as early as next Spring, but my guess is that the really contentious ones, involving the upward extension of existing buildings and the demolition of commercial buildings to make way for residential development may take rather longer to come forward, and may be quietly dropped if they are greeted with loud booing from LPAs and conservationists.

I can’t really see what advantage is to be gained from making such developments PD. The issues that would have to be considered in relation to a prior approval application for these developments would be substantially similar to those that would apply to a planning application, so why make the change?

Widening permitted development rights to the extent that is now canvassed by the government makes rather a nonsense of the whole concept of “permitted development”. n © MARTIN H GOODALL Subscribe to Martin’s blog at: http://planninglawblog.blogspot.com

26

Planning in London

Budget 2018: Detailed planning analysis Duncan Field looks at the planning-related details from the 2018 Budget:

Land Value Capture Capturing more of the uplift in land value associated with the grant of planning permission, in order to fund infrastructure and affordable housing, has support from across the political spectrum. It is no surprise to see this feature in the Budget announcement.

However it is disappointing that the Government has declined to look at this as part of a wider review of property taxation including stamp duty, rates and capital gains. Instead it appears to be bolting this on to community infrastructure levy (CIL), changing the already complex and clunky legislation that regulates the levy. In taking this narrowly-focused approach there is a real risk that the balance of taxation on property will be wrong, creating a disincentive for land transactions and development. In addition, by attempting to use CIL to capture more value uplift the Government risks a patchy outcome which is likely to vary considerably across the country.

Other proposals for changes to CIL include: • guidance for local planning authorities on adopting and revising CIL charging schedules; • a streamlined requirement to consult on proposed charging schedules and levy rates • removing (in all areas) the current restriction on pooling financial contributions from section 106 agreements to fund infrastructure • changes to penalties for late submission of commencement notices • extension of abatement provisions to phased planning permissions granted before introduction of CIL • guidance for local authorities which wish to set differential levy rates based on existing use of land • changes to indexation of levy rates including use of the house price index for rates that apply to residential development and the consumer price index for non-residential development • use of statutory infrastructure funding statements to report on the income received from developer contributions and CIL and how the income is spent, whilst removing the restrictions which prevent use of section 106 contributions for infrastructure items identified on the CIL expenditure list (or “regulation

Duncan Field is head of planning at the London office of law firm Norton Rose Fulbright

123 list”) • enabling combined authorities with strategic planning powers to take forward a strategic infrastructure tariff and encouraging groups of charging authorities to use existing powers to coordinate delivery of strategic infrastructure by pooling CIL receipts.

There are some helpful changes to CIL in these proposals, such as the removal of pooling restrictions on section 106 agreements. However it is difficult to escape the conclusion that demanding more of CIL and making yet more changes to the CIL regulations will add even further complexities and create more of the practical issues which have dogged CIL since its introduction.

Housing The press gave quite a bit of coverage to the housing delivery gap - the difference between the number of permitted homes and the number of homes actually delivered - and the need to force developers or landowners to dispose of sites with planning permission for housing which are not being brought forward.

Both politicians and the press have tended to blame the housing delivery gap on speculative land banking by housebuilders, but the conclusion of the Letwin review is clear that this is not a feature of the housebuilders’ business model. Instead the review found that market absorption rate was the key factor in the housing delivery gap and that this could be addressed through increasing the range of housing types and tenures that are brought forward on each site.

Beyond this, the recommendations of the Letwin review will raise some eyebrows. These include a new set of planning rules for sites in excess of 1,500 units in areas of high demand for housing. These rules would require diversification of housing types and tenures and rely on a new national expert committee to advise on and arbitrate disputes concerning diversity requirements for these large sites.

Further recommendations include a power for

BRIEFING: 2018 IN INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING | ANGUS WALKER

local planning authorities in areas of high housing demand to allocate land in the local plan which can only be developed as single large sites, and introduce master plans and design codes with a high degree of diversification.

In addition, Letwin advocates the use of statutory powers by local authorities to purchase large sites compulsorily and that the price paid as part of that process should reflect the diversification requirements, which in turn should be pressed to a point where residual development value of the site is approximately 10 times existing use value and no more.

Finally, Letwin suggests local authorities also control the development of such sites by establishing a local development company which would lead the master planning process and bring in private capital to pay for the land and the infrastructure before selling off parcels of land for different housing types and tenures. Alternatively, they could simply limit their role to master planning and bring in a privately financed company to fulfil the remaining requirements.

A full response to the Letwin review from Government is expected in February 2019. In practice it seems to me more likely that the majority of these proposals (if taken up) would be implemented through local authorities and their local plan policies rather than new national policy or legislation.

However, the Government’s appetite for speeding up delivery of housing by whatever means necessary and it willingness to take a lead on these recommendations shouldn’t be underestimated.

Separately, in an interesting move the Government has also invited proposals from investors to help deliver a new concept of private shared ownership homes and other privately funded routes to affordable home ownership such as Rent to Buy. This is a positive move and capitalises on the current attractiveness of housing – and rented and affordable housing, in particular – as an investment asset class.

Planning Reform Alongside the Budget the Government has published proposals for further reforms of the planning system. These include: • new permitted development rights for upward extensions above a range of commercial premises and residential properties subject to prior approval

www.planninginlondon.com

and height limits • ambitious new permitted development rights allowing commercial buildings to be demolished and replaced with homes subject to prior approval, limitations and developer contributions • more flexible changes of use in high streets through the introduction of new permitted development rights including from A1, A2 or A5 retail uses to offices and from A5 (hot food takeaways) to residential subject to prior approval • extending permitted development rights for temporary changes of use in high street premises to other community uses including libraries, exhibition halls, museums, clinics or health centres • changes to retail use classes to accommodate new and future business models and more flexibility within use classes including merging shops, financial and professional services and restaurants and cafes into a single use class • removing permitted development rights for telephone kiosks and removal of deemed advertisement consent for adverts on the side of a telephone kiosk • making the permitted development rights for changes from storage and distribution to residential and for larger extensions to dwellings permanent These reforms are largely aimed at revitalising the high street, so that it becomes more of a community hub with a range of uses, in addition to helping increase delivery of new homes. Overall they should be welcomed, but the risk of “unplanned planning” through the gradual creep of permitted development rights is a concern. The proposed right to demolish commercial buildings and replace them with residential dwellings is a significant scaling up of permitted development rights and without tight controls could result in substandard or badly-located housing.

In addition, the proposed review of use classes is long overdue, but it should not be limited to retail; the outdated classifications in the 1987 Order do not sit well with the new operating models that have emerged in recent years for a variety of sectors, including housing, care and supported living, and the way we work and distribute goods (e.g. co-working, last mile delivery). It is no exaggeration to say that the current form of the order is a barrier to growth and limits land supply.

Aside from this focus on the high street, Government is also consulting on the following: • extending the flexibility for local authorities to dis-

pose of land at less than best consideration by raising the financial threshold at which the Secretary of State’s consent is needed • the first listed building consent order which will benefit the Canal and River Trust • draft guidance on the use and approval of compulsory purchase powers by new town development corporations. n

Angus Walker is a partner in BDB Pitmans LLP

2018 in infrastructure planning Angus Walker reviews the year 2018 in infrastructure planning As usual, at the start of the year I made 10 predictions. How accurate were they?

1. Three applications will be decided in 2018 Correct, just three decisions on Development Consent Order applications were made this year: Silvertown Tunnel, Eggborough power station and A19 Testo’s Junction. That is the lowest number since the regime began. The year saw five correction orders and seven amendment orders, though, so DCOs are changing four times more often than they are being made.

2. All three will be approvals Correct. The Silvertown Tunnel was significantly delayed, but it was an approval nonetheless. The other two were approved on time, reversing the recent trend for delayed approvals, which I hope is a good sign.

3. Two National Policy Statements will be published in draft Correct. The NPSs for Geological Disposal Infrastructure and Water Resources were published at either end of the year – January and December. I guessed one of those wrongly (Nuclear Power rather than Geological Disposal) but the main prediction >>>

Issue 108 January-March 2019

27

BRIEFING: AFFORDABLE HOUSING

was correct so I’m counting it! No sign of any move to renew rather aged NPSs other than the Nuclear Power one, which is presumably only being renewed >>> because it says it only lasts until 2025.

4. No judicial reviews of DCO decisions will be successful Correct. In fact there was only one such judicial review – the Court of Appeal heard a challenge to the refusal of the Mynydd y Gwynt onshore wind farm application.

The reversal of the Preesall gas storage DCO refusal remains the only successful judicial review relating to the regime.

5. Eight applications will be made this year Massively incorrect. 21 applications have been made so far (23 if you count ones that were made twice).

No applications were made in the first three months, and only one up to the 13 May. After that a glut of applications broke the drought and we’re now swimming in them. I am usually an optimist but was having a pessimistic moment when I made that prediction, based on the very low application rate at that time and the prospect of Brexit slowing things down, which does not seem to have happened, so far.

6. No applications will contain housing in 2018 Correct. Although the ability to include an element of housing in a DCO application has been available since April 2017, none of that glut of applications has chosen to do so. Some say that housing needs to be able to be the main purpose of an application before the regime will be used for it.

7. The Planning Act 2008 regime will not be amended by primary legislation Correct. It did get amended by a single piece of secondary legislation (the Environmental Assessments and Miscellaneous Planning (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018). I conclude that the regime is now pretty stable, although the main reason may be because Parliament has had other things to spend its time on recently.

8. An application for a business or commercial project will be made Incorrect. We still haven’t seen one of those since they were able to be made five years ago. Still only two projects have opted to use the Planning Act

28

Planning in London

regime (London Resort and IAMP) but neither has made an application yet.

the mayor and that he expects to exceed his target of starting 14,000 affordable homes this year.

9. The National Infrastructure Commission will publish its final National Infrastructure Assessment Correct. It did so on 10 July. The government is supposed to respond within six months, with a backstop (to coin a phrase) of a year. I don’t see it doing anything by 10 January, and I’m not sure it will do anything by 10 July 2019 either – its only commitment, made on budget day, was to respond next year.

£10m cash boost for London council’s planning teams

10. This blog will clock up 825 posts this past year Incorrect, I’m 10 short. I think that is a reflection of how busy things are getting generally, with less time for such fripperies as blog writing. There is also possibly a bit less Planning Act 2008 news than there has been previously, but perhaps this will pick up next year as the number of applications has picked up.

Results: 7 out of 10 correct, which is actually quite good for me. n Subscribe to Angus’ blog at https://www.bdbpitmans.com/news-and-insights/blogs/

Mayor misses affordable homes target A GLA report claims that only 14 per cent of housing starts in Sadiq Khan's mayoral term have been for social rented homes The report, Monitoring the mayor’s housing commitments, by the assembly's housing committee, said that 12,555 affordable homes were started in 2017/18, narrowly exceeding the bottom end of the mayor’s annual target of between 12,500 and 16,500 homes.

However, the committee's report said demand for social rent represents almost half of housing need in London, but only 14 per cent of housing starts in Sadiq Khan's mayoral term have been for social rented homes.

According to the committee, 5,355 affordable homes part-funded by the mayor were completed in 2017/18, compared to an average of more than 10,000 a year over the last decade.

The Mayor’s office said affordable home starts are at their highest level since funding was devolved to

Mayor Khan has launched a £10 million fund that aims to ‘beef’ up councils’ housing and planning teams to help them build more homes.

Council budgets in London have fallen by 50 per cent in London, which Khan says has prevented housing growth and planning for new council homes.

The Homebuilding Capacity Fund will see council bid for up to £750,000 each to boost housing and planning teams. The money can be used for hiring new staff.

Khan will also consider bids that help to deliver a new generation of council homes, social rented and other affordable homes on small sites, masterplans in areas that have significant growth potential, and optimal density across new residential development in an area.

The fund will work alongside a number of the other schemes that aim to deliver council housing, including a new council-led housing forum, run by Future of London, which will provide technical advice to practitioners involved in council-led delivery of homes.

Pocket Living and Tfl pair up Transport for London has announced that it will partner with Pocket Living to provide “100 per cent genuinely” affordable homes for first-time buyers on several of its sites.

The partnership aims to see Pocket Living build about 125 one-bedroom homes on TfL sites that will be sold outright to buyers at a discount from the open-market value.

Pocket homes are prioritised for people who already live or work in the borough and are first-time buyers. They are targeted specifically at local singles and couples who earn too much to qualify for social housing, but are priced out of the open market.

Buyers of the homes own 100 per cent of their property from day one.

New purchasers must meet the original criteria and have a household income below the Mayor of London’s affordable housing threshold. n

BRIEFING: URBAN DESIGN | PETER EVERSDEN

Better urban design Peter Eversdenreports the open meeting of the London Forum of Civic and Amenity Societies on better urban design on 28th November

increase. Londoners want to have a say in the future of their communities, to understand what decisions are being made and have real engagement in the process.

Avoiding Harm in Densification: how can design policies and codes be used to create places and homes people want?

Michael Bach opened the meeting, which was very timely in view of the launching by the Government of a Building Better Building Beautiful Commission and the imminence of the Examination-in-Public of the London Plan, a key issue in it being “what kind of London do Londoners want?”.

Londoners mainly know what they don’t want – high rise and/or significantly higher densities, but are they able to say what they do want or at least how much change they are prepared to accept in their neighbourhood? It is not just about better urban design, but about creating or maintaining the types of places that people want to live in.

Tall buildings - 20 storeys or higher - have been the feature of the last ten years. But Londoners never voted for them. Densities have increased. The first London Plan had a density matrix – linking density to, among other things, public transport accessibility, setting an appropriate density range, and guiding the highest densities to locations with high transport accessibility and to Opportunity Areas.

The London Forum strongly supported the matrix, but developers and the GLA planners extensively abused the density limits – and promoted tall buildings with inappropriate designs in inappropriate places. The public has developed a severe distrust of developers and planners. With increasing resort to pre-application advice, developers and planners come to agreement in private often well before the public get to hear about the proposals, by which time the deal will have been done.

The new London Plan proposes “Good Growth”.

But only if schemes have come through a local plan as a site allocation, or there is a planning brief for the site, will the public get any opportunity to influence what happens. With increasing emphasis on a ‘design-led approach’ in the London Plan in order to get as much development as possible on sites, especially small sites, the community may get left out of the process and have less and less influence on shaping their neighbourhood; their distrust will

Four speakers gave presentations.

Ben Derbyshire, President of the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), opened. He spoke about the RIBA’s Future Place project, backed up with real research and intended to illuminate best practice (‘the ten characteristics of places where people wanted to live’); not just ‘development control’ but positive, collaborative, planning by local authorities, for which more resources would be needed. Local authorities would have to provide leadership, and facilitate land assembly. There would have to be post-occupancy evaluation of housing developments. Mr Derbyshire spoke highly of Oliver Letwin’s review of build out, which had identified the problem and the need for more market diversity. He was doubtful about the Scruton ‘Building Better Building Beautiful Commission’, which appeared to be a triumph of style over substance and a retreat to the past.

Design was not the same as style.

The second speaker was Yolande Barnes, Chair of the UCL Bartlett Real Estate Institute and until recently at Savills Research. She ranged across the globe to demonstrate that high density need not be harmful. Madrid was the European city with the highest density, with buildings rarely above five or six storeys; there were few parks, but many small gardens with seats at street corners. Other examples were Narbonne, where the Roman street pattern was still recognisable, and Mumbai, which showed how people preferred to live, in dense, multi-purpose neighbourhoods.

The Corbusian concept of massive buildings surrounded by open space - advocated as providing ‘light and air’ and prevalent in the late twentieth century - was wrong and damaging. The digital economy, which did not constrain working to particular locations, would facilitate anthropocentric bottom-up planning of cities.

The third speaker was Sue Vincent, Head of Learning at Urban Design London (UDL) (and a Camden Councillor); UDL was a member of the Design Network of not-for-profit organisations across England. She emphasised the need for councillors on planning committees to have training in

www.planninginlondon.com

Peter Eversden chairs the London Forum of Civic and Amenity Societies

matters including the reading of plans - a Councillor’s Companion had just been published.

Culture must change and the public must be involved more. There should be community review groups. There was great value in having Design Awards.

The final speaker was Nicholas Boys-Smith of Create Streets. He advocated co-design (e.g with charettes) rather than consultation. There were merits in high density living - for instance more interaction with neighbours. Greenery was not necessarily good for you - it might be threatening by providing opportunities for undesirables to lurk. Properties ought where possible to have clear backs and fronts.

Calling a part of a conurbation a village did not make it a village in any real sense. Although it was understandable why disabled access led to the elimination of steps, climbing steps was of itself good exercise. Choice of where a person wanted to live was not necessarily rational, and could be influenced by memories and the like. Mr Boys-Smith favoured neighbourhood planning, properly focused and not over-complicated, with fine-grain density.

Discussion: There was then a session of questions to the panel.

The Bromley Civic Society said that Bromley was being inundated by applications for 10-15 storey blocks in its Town Centre redevelopment; the Council seemed target-driven. What had been said in the presentations was totally unrealistic. How could a civic society have any influence? Ms Vincent said it was important to get in quickly, before pre-application discussions had crystallised. Mr Derbyshire said that a problem was that there must be subsidies to enable people to live where they could not otherwise afford to live; if these subsidies had to come from the private sector there would have to be sufficient profit on the market housing to enable the provision of a proportion of genuinely affordable housing. Mr Boys-Smith stressed the value of having a neigh-

Issue 108 January-March 2019

29

BRIEFING

bourhood plan in place with clear limits on high density.

The Charlton Society said that they too were beginning to see applications for large blocks of flats; the council seemed to favour developers over people; how could this be resisted? Ms Barnes advocated charettes; good developers see the value for them in involving people from the outset; it was too late when large sums had already been invested.

The Kingston-on-Thames Society said that they had been involved in consultations with developers where it was clear that there had been pre-application discussions, and there was therefore no intention of making changes; all the society could do was to be reactive. Mr Boys-Smith said that it would help to have in place a clearly focussed neighbourhood plan; that requires a lot of work.

The Stratford Neighbourhood Forum raised the need to get plans changed. Mr Derbyshire said that when the implications of the Grenfell Tower disaster had been fully digested there would be major changes. The requirements for high-rise buildings would become such as to be difficult and very expensive to achieve, therefore virtually unsustainable in financial terms. Mr Boys-Smith concurred - tall buildings were very expensive to run - witness the service charge for the Barbican. Ms Barnes said that it was therefore likely that many existing permissions would not be implemented. The result could be empty sites and failure to achieve London Plan targets; there would have to be some incentive for landowners beyond existing use value.

The Clapham Society asked how best to check local authorities who believed that becoming big developers themselves was the way to make lots of money? Ms Vincent said that many authorities believed that this was the way to pay for social housing. The Clapham Society said that this belief would, in the long run, prove misguided.

Ms Burridge mentioned the need to involve children in decisions that would affect them particularly.

Ms Vincent said that there were examples of good practice in this. Mr Boys-Smith observed that some planning decisions had twice as much impact on children as on the rest of the community; small green spaces close to where they lived were better for them than large more distant parks. Mr Derbyshire said that the rules regarding amenity space were quite good; however, dwellings provided through conversions to residential as permitted development

30

Planning in London

never had adequate play spaces (or insulation, for that matter).

The Barnet Residents Association said that the destruction of traditional suburban houses with gardens by densification and the onward march of flats was driving away people in the 25-35 age group who were starting families; they were moving out of London altogether to the home counties. Ms Barnes said that many suburbs were currently degentrifying; the demand was for a more urban, less car-reliant lifestyle. The Residents Association demurred. Mr Derbyshire said that there was currently more deprivation in suburban areas, what was needed was ‘supurbia’, and the transportation revolution would help bring this about.

Mr Bach asked how a design-led approach could be squared with a community-inclusive one. Ms Barnes did not see a conflict, if there was full consultation and engagement before pre-application discussions. Mr Boys-Smith regretted the small part taken by neighbourhood planning in the London Plan, which had too much central control. n

posed developments could "increase understanding of their impacts with planners and citizens during the design phase" and may allow communities to "understand and help shape development”. n

3D model free at the point of use for Londoners

Housing minister Kit Brokenshire has blocked a 220-home Croydon tower on design grounds The London Borough of Croydon had resolved to approve the development, but the application was called in by the secretary of state in April 2017.

Planning inspector David Nicholson subsequently recommended the plans be approved. But a decision letter says that James Brokenshire had "serious concerns" about the proposed design of the tower, reported Planning.

Brokenshire disagreed with the inspector that, "for most of the scheme, the overall standard of design can be described as being sufficiently high to merit substantial weight. The presence of the tower would distract from the enjoyment of the facades and civic presence of the library, and cause harm to this heritage asset and this weighs against the proposal.

The housing secretary also raised particular concerns about the height of the proposed tower, the design of the facades, and the prevalence of single aspect homes.

The application proposes development on two neighbouring sites - a three-to-17 storey building on the first site comprising 114 homes, community and church space and a retail unit; with a three-to-eight storey building on the second site providing 106 homes. n

The GLA’s chief digital officer Theo Blackwell has announced that his team at City Hall would be launching an initiative shortly "to understand what technology is available to deliver a 3D model free at the point of use for Londoners".

Blackwell said the aim of this work is to understand how 3D modelling "can be used to change how we understand the impacts of proposed developments both as residents and as professionals, and how it changes the decisions we make".

It would also seek to find the "best solutions for Londoners how they can consume and engage this information whether through web tools, mobile apps, in borough offices or some other medium.

"Many long hours are spent by developers, local authority planners and architects with civic groups and residents to understand how proposed developments might impact lives and amenity. The tools used to do this remains really quite traditional paper, models and presentations.

The GLA, as part of its work around the "digital transformation of planning", has "been considering next steps to use data to visualise development".

Blackwell suggests that a 3D model showing pro-

A visualisation of the proposals for the 17-storey tower in Purley

Design matters

F ORTHCOMING FO FORTHCOMING R T H C O MI N G EVENTS EVENTS P ARKS AND PARKS AN D OPE OPENN SPACES SPACE S SE SERIES RI E S Thursday 17 January 2019 TALK | Great Green spaces: London’s regional parks Sue Morgan, Wandle Valley Regional Park Trust; Peter Massini, GLA; and Stewart Pomeroy, Colne Valley Park share the history and the secrets of the capital’s three great regional parks.

H IGH HI HIGH GH ST STREETS RE E T S SERIES S ERIES SE RI E S Tuesday 5 February 2019 TALK | High Streets: Resilience and Resourcefulness High streets are full of people who make things happen. In this session, three speakers will optimistically explore the suppleness, originality and inventiveness of UK high streets from different perspectives. Join Stacey Adamiec, Jamie Dean and Mark Brearley as The London Society kicks off its look at London's high streets.

RT R TPI RTPI PI LLONDON ON DON DE DEBATE BAT E SE SERIES RI E S Wednesday 6 February 2019 DEBATE | Tackling London’s Illegal Air Pollution Come and hear from speakers at the sharp end of the battle to improve London’s air quality. You will learn more about the Mayor’s strategy for improving the air quality in the City as well as campaigners who have successfully challenged the UK Governments in the high court.

LLOONDON LONDON N D O N IICONS C O N S SSERIES ER I ES Wednesday 13 February 2019 TOUR | Southwark Cathedral by Candlelight Come and explore over 900 years of history on this London Society candlelit tour of Southwark Cathedral.

L ONDON LO LONDON N D O N IICONS C O N S SSERIES ER I ES Tuesday 26 February 2019 DEBATE | Commemorating London Join us in the pub to discuss the London sculptures that should never have been erected - and the commemorations that are long overdue.

T h e Lon Th L onn don Lo d o n So S o ciety ci e t y is i s ggratefu ra t e f u l ttoo oouu r Corp C o rp orate o ra t e Sup Su p po p o rters rt e rs

The London Society and London Historians have been running a poll to find the public artwork that is the capital's least popular, and the 'winner' will be announced this evening.

R TPI RT RTPI PI LLONDON ON DON DE DEBATE BAT E SE SERIES RI E S Wednesday 6 March 2019 DEBATE | The Planning System: Broken Beyond Repair?

Daniel Moylan, former Deputy Leader of Kensington and Chelsea Council, asks if the Planning system in London is not now so anti-market and so anti-people in its outcomes that it would not be better to abolish it and start again with a much lighter touch.

Responding will be Victoria Hills, Chief Executive of the Royal Town Planning Institute, who will provide her take on the current system, and there will be questions from the audience.

O ther Ot Other her ev events ent s – details d etails det ai l s avai available l abl e shor shortly tly • • • • • • • •

TALK | London’s Railway Network TALK | Paddington and Brunel WALK | Merton Priory TALK | The Pressures on London’s Parks WALK | City Road TOUR | Royal Opera House TALK | Great Estates: Covent Garden TALK | Waterloo Bridge

F or information For i nformation in fo rm a t io n and a n d to t o book b o o k tickets, t ic k e t s , vvisit is it

l ondonsoci lo londonsoci londonsociet n d o n s o c i ety.org.uk/events e ty.org.uk/events y. or g. uk/event s

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

¡PILLO!

LETTERS

¡PILLO!

From: R Kinta Architect/Planner

Red telephone box could harm setting of the V&A

Planning conditions: a record for the speedy implementation of essential improvements

An inspector has refused plans to convert an iconic red telephone box (see Andy Rogers column on this topic in the last issue). The plan was to convert the phone box into a refreshments kiosk.

The Inspector found it posed ‘unacceptable harm to the area’s important heritage assets’.

Sir, Almost exactly ten years ago (24th November 2008 to be exact) the Killian Pretty Review recommended - among 16 other things - that the Government should comprehensively improve the approach to planning conditions to ensure that they are only imposed if justified, especially with regard to those requiring further submissions before development begins, and that the process for discharging conditions be made clearer and faster.

In a typically rapid response the then DCLG with DBERR* agreed in March 2009 that improvement was required and set out upon the usual lengthy process of further review, proposal and consultation. This eventually culminated in actual reform, with new regulations that finally came into force on 1st October 2018 - beating a ten-year cut-off by 54 days.

Is this a record for the speedy implementation of essential improvements to the planning system? * Department for Communities and Local Government with Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. (Whatever happened to them?) n From: Richard Harrison, past president of the Association of Consultant Architects

Business as usual is no longer good enough It is clear that business as usual in housing delivery is no longer good enough and that the time has come for change.

We have a collective vision of the kinds of great homes and communities we all want to see. All that remains is to act on the accumulated evidence and experience to make the Future Places where people will choose to live.

– Ben Derbyshire, RIBA president

‘Paragraph 55’ tree house for sale A small number of architects in the countryside are making use of a little-known provision once called Paragraph 55 to design exceptionally beautiful homes in isolated areas, reports The Times.

This provision, in the government’s NPPF, allows for homes of “exceptional design” to be built in rural areas, areas of outstanding natural

Is it a new urban sculpture… or just an old clock?

beauty or national parks. Pictured is an example with the chance to buy the approved plans. It’s for a treehouse in a forest near the village of Ewen, near Cirencester in Gloucestershire, yours for £1 million.

The property, when built, will extend to seven acres of woodland. Its architect, Richard Hawkes, is the only one in the UK to have a 100 per cent record of Paragraph 55 approvals, with 16 projects.

And here comes another…

In the Kent Downs AONB, this one was refused

by Dover District Council but granted on appeal.

It’s by Charles Holland Architects.

DINPP (Do I Need Planning Permission) application just £97 Sir, No matter how we seemingly try to simplify the planning system through central government, local authorities find a way to turn simplification into another opportunity to charge fees and process applications.

There are 31 basic application types now available in my little town of Gosport – see: https://www.gosport.gov.uk/sections/yourcouncil/council-services/planning-

32

Planning in London

section/applying-for-planning-permission/ This has led (in Chichester at least) to a new concept… a “Do I Need Planning Permission” DINPP Application form, for which a princely sum of £97 is charged (only £6 less that a Lawful

Development Certificate). For this you simply receive a non-binding letter within 15 working days to tell you what you already know – that planning consent is not required!

Where did that one come from? n

CLIPBOARD

UK Innovation Corridor The Mayor has sent boroughs £150m for housebuilding in the ‘Innovation Corridor’.

He has agreed plans worth more than £1 billion with 26 London boroughs to build 11,000 new council homes at social rent levels over the next four years. Between them, the local authorities in the UK's Innovation Corridor will receive around £150m, and build around 3000 new homes. The plans form the cornerstone of ‘Building Council Homes for Londoners’ – the City Hall programme dedicated to council homebuilding.

When Khan launched the programme in May it set a target for 10,000 new homes – and now he has responded to overwhelming interest from boroughs by agreeing allocations for 11,154 new council homes at social rent levels, and a further 3,570 other homes, including those for London Living Rent.

In addition to funding, the Building Council Homes for Londoners programme offers boroughs an innovative way to ringfence their Right to Buy receipts to invest in new homes, alongside expertise and resources from City Hall to scale up their homebuilding programmes. It sits alongside the Homebuilding Capacity Fund, announced last October, a £10 million fund which allows boroughs to bid for up to £750,000 each to help boost their housing and planning teams.

London Borough of Enfield will fund 571 homes with £18,108,000, London Borough of Hackney will fund 949 homes with £45,556,000, London Borough of Haringey will build 848 homes with £62,858,000, London Borough of Redbridge will fund 400 homes from Right to Buy receipts, and London Borough of Waltham Forest will fund 293 homes with £25,518,000.

Another go at the Bishopsgate Goodsyard Developers Hammerson and Ballymore could get their reworked Bishopsgate Goodsyard proposals approved by Mayor in a matter of months – even though designs (RIGHT) have yet to be formally lodged for planning. The firms have unveiled revised proposals for the 4.7ha site in east London created by FaulknerBrowns, Buckley Gray

www.planninginlondon.com

Tunnelling begins at Thames Tideway Tunnel Tunnelling has begun on the Thames Tideway Tunnel 'super sewer' with the first of six tunnel boring machines that have begun laying a ring on the project. Tunnelling had been scheduled to commence in summer but was delayed.

Mark Sneesby, Chief Operating Officer for Tideway, said: "Laying the first ring on the Thames Tideway Tunnel is a huge milestone that we’ve been working towards for more than a year. While you might have spotted our sites above ground along the River Thames, our team underground are now also in full swing as they start digging the 25km super sewer that will help clean up our river".

"It's fantastic we're able to mark this event by announcing a new apprenticeship, which will allow a new generation of tunnellers to train alongside some of the most highly skilled and experienced people in the construction industry, ensuring we have the right abilities for future infrastructure projects", said Sneesby.

Yeoman, Chris Dyson and Spacehub.

Earlier proposals featuring residential towers of up to 46 storeys were ditched in 2016.

The latest proposals include 130,000sq m of offices along with 16,250sq m of retail space and a 300-bed hotel. A park is also planned for the top of the grade II-listed Braithwaite Viaduct. The scale of the earlier proposals was a concern for opponents – which included both the elected mayors of Tower Hamlets and Hackney. n

Issue 108 January-March 2019

33

BRIEFING | PLANNING PERFORMANCE

Downward trend accelerates for applications and decisions Latest planning performance by English districts and London boroughs: Planning Applications in England: July-September 2018 OVERVIEW Between July to September 2018, district level planning authorities in England: • received 110,300 applications for planning permission, down six per cent on the corresponding quarter of 2017; • granted 93,300 decisions, down six per cent from the same quarter in 2017; this is equivalent to 89 per cent of decisions, up one percentage point from the same quarter of 2017; • decided 88 per cent of major applications within 13 weeks or the agreed time, down one percentage point from a year earlier; • granted 11,800 residential applications, down six per cent on a year earlier: 1,600 for major developments and 10,200 for minors; • granted 2,300 applications for commercial developments, down 10 per cent on a year earlier.

The Figure 1 shows trends in numbers of applications received, decided and granted since 2006-07.

In the year ending September 2018, district level planning authorities: • granted 368,800 decisions, down three per cent on the year ending September 2017; and • granted 48,100 decisions on residential developments, of which 6,400 were for major developments and 41,700 were for minors, both down by three per cent on the year ending September 2017.

Planning applications During July to September 2018, authorities undertaking district level planning in England received 110,300 applications for planning permission, down six per cent on the corresponding quarter in 2017. In the year ending September 2018, author-

34

Planning in London

ities received 457,700 planning applications, down four per cent on the year ending September 2017 (Live Tables P132/P134, Table 1 and Detail of district matters decisions table).

Planning decisions Authorities reported 105,400 decisions on planning applications in July to September 2018, a decrease of six per cent on the 112,700 decisions in the same quarter of the previous year. In the year ending September 2018, authorities decided 419,100 planning applications, down three per cent on the number in the year ending September 2017 (Live Tables P120/P133/P134 and Table 1).

Applications granted During July to September 2018, authorities granted 93,300 decisions, down six per cent on the same quarter in 2017. Authorities granted 89 per cent of all decisions, up one percentage point from the September quarter of 2017 (Live Tables P120/P133). Overall, 83 per cent of major and minor decisions were granted (Live Table P131).

Over the 12 months to September 2018, 368,800 decisions were granted, down three per cent on the figure for the year to September 2017 (Live Table P132, Table 1 and Details of district matters decisions table).

Historical context Figure 1 and Table 1 show that, since 2006-07, the numbers of applications received, decisions made and applications granted have each followed a similar pattern. As well as the usual within-year pattern of peaks in the Summer and troughs in the Winter, there was a clear downward trend during the 2008 economic downturn, with figures remaining broadly level since then, albeit with numbers showing a slight upward trend recently.

Historical figures for all district level decisions dating back to 2006/07 are set out in Live Table P120, with separate breakdowns for residential and commercial decisions being shown in Live Tables P120A and P120B respectively. These latter two

tables are discussed below in the sections on residential and commercial decisions1.commercial decisions1.

Figure 2 summarises the distribution of the percentage of decisions granted across authorities for major, minor and other developments using box and whisker plots. The ends of the box are the upper and lower quartiles, meaning that 50 per cent of local authorities fall within this range. The whiskers are the two lines above and below the box that extend to the highest and lowest observations (the range). Figure 2 shows that the variation in percentage of decisions granted this quarter is widest between authorities for major developments (0 to 100 per cent), followed by other developments (66 to 100 per cent) and minor developments (48 to 100 per cent) (Live Tables P120/P131).

Speed of decisions • In July to September 2018, 88 per cent of major applications were decided within 13 weeks or within the agreed time2, down one percentage point from the same quarter a year earlier.

• In July to September 2018, 85 per cent of minor applications and 90 per cent of other applications were decided within eight weeks or the agreed time, up one percentage point and unchanged from a year earlier respectively.

Figure 3 summarises the distribution of the percentage of decisions made in time across authorities for major, minor and other developments using box and whisker plots. The ends of the box are the upper and lower quartiles, meaning that 50 per cent of local authorities fall within this range. The whiskers are the two lines above and below the box that extend to the highest and lowest observations (the range). Figure 3 shows that the variation in percentage of decisions made in time this quarter is widest between authorities for major developments (0 to 100 per cent), followed by other developments (30 to 100 per cent) and minor developments (38 to 100 per cent) (Live Tables P120 and P131, and Details of district matters decisions table).

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

Use of performance agreements Table 2 shows the increase in the use of performance agreements3 since April 2014. It shows that they are more commonly used for major developments than minor or other developments4. Figure 4 shows, from 2009, numbers of decisions on major developments made involving a performance agreement, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of all decisions on major developments.

Notwithstanding definitional changes, there has been a marked increase in the use of agreements since early 2013, although the increases have slowed down in recent quarters. In reality, this longer upward trend has been driven by both the additional scope for recording them and their additional use. The proportion of major decisions subject to an agreement was 64 per cent during July to September 2018 (Table 2).

Performance of individual district level local planning authorities Live Tables P151a and P153 present data on the

Planning decisions by development type, speed of decision and local planning authority: July-Sept 2018. Table 131 can be found with all tables and figures here: https://goo.gl/HphuyW Source: CLG/ONS performance of district level local planning authorities against the latest published criterion in Improving planning performance: criteria for designation on the speed of decision-making for informing decisions on the designation of poorly performing local planning authorities under section 62B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In particular, Live Table P151a gives detailed figures for the time taken for major decisions to be made over the eight most recent quarters and Live Table P153 presents data for the time taken by district level local planning authorities for decisions on ‘non-major developments’ (previously ‘minor and other developments’, and defined as minor developments, changes of use and house-

holder developments) to be made over the eight most recent quarters.

Similarly, Live Table P152a, presents data on the performance of district level local planning authorities against the latest published criterion in Improving planning performance: criteria for designation on the quality of decision-making for assessing performance under section 62B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In particular, it gives detailed figures for the percentage of major decisions subject to a successful planning appeal, by matching eight quarters of the department’s data on decisions and all available quarters of Planning Inspectorate data on appeals. This table is usually published a few weeks after the statistical release and most of the other live tables, to take account of the latest appeals data.

Live Table P154 presents data for the percentage of decisions on minor and other developments (as defined for Table P153) subject to a successful planning appeal, by matching eight quarters of the department’s data on decisions and all available quarters of Planning Inspectorate data on appeals.

Like Table P152a, this table is usually published a few weeks after the statistical release and most of the other live tables, to take account of the latest appeals data.

Residential decisions In July to September 2018, 15,700 decisions were made on applications for residential5 developments, of which 11,800 (75 per cent) were granted.

The total number of residential decisions made decreased by seven per cent from the September quarter of 2017, with the number granted dropping six per cent. The number of major residential decisions granted decreased by one per cent to 1,600, >>>

www.planninginlondon.com

Issue 108 January-March 2019

35

BRIEFING | PLANNING PERFORMANCE

>>> and the number of minor residential decisions granted decreased by six per cent to 10,200 (Live Tables P120A and P135, and Details of district matters decisions table). In the year ending September 2018, authorities granted 6,400 major and 41,700 minor residential applications, both down by three per cent on the year ending September 2017 (Live Tables P120A and P136).

Residential units The figures collected by the department look at the numbers of decisions on planning applications submitted to local planning authorities, rather than the number of units included in each application, such as the number of homes in the case of housing developments. The department supplements this information by obtaining statistics on housing permissions from a contractor 6. The latest provisional figures show that permission for 359,500 homes was given in the rolling year to 30 September 2018: • up two per cent compared to the 352,100 homes granted permission in the rolling year to 30 September 2017.

On an ongoing basis, figures are revised to ensure that any duplicates are removed, and also to include any projects that local planning authorities may not have processed: they are therefore subject to change, and the latest quarter’s provisional figures tend to be revised upwards. These figures are provided here to give contextual information to users, and have not been designated as National Statistics.

Table 3 and Figure 6 show how the rolling annual total of housing units granted has changed since 2007.

Commercial decisions In July to September 2018, 2,500 decisions were made on applications for commercial developments, of which 2,300 (92 per cent) were granted.

36

Planning in London

The total number of commercial decisions granted decreased by ten per cent on the same quarter of 2017. In the year ending September 2018, 9,400 applications for commercial developments were granted, down 11 per cent on the year ending September 2017 (Live Table P120B).

Trends in numbers of residential and commercial decisions Historically, numbers of residential decisions dropped sharply during 2008 (particularly for minor decisions) but have been increasing since 2012, albeit with some decreases recently. Numbers of commercial decisions made also decreased sharply during 2008, and have since stabilised at around 2,100 per year for major and 10,000 per year for minor commercial decisions, albeit with some further decreases recently, particularly for minor decisions. In 2017/18, numbers of major commercial decisions were at about 57 per cent of the prerecession peak, with the numbers of minor commercial decisions being at about 40 per cent (Live Tables P120A and P120B, Figure 7)8.

Trends in the percentage of residential and commercial decisions granted The percentages of major and minor residential decisions granted increased between 2008/09 (from about 65 per cent for each type) and 2010/11 (to about 80 per cent for majors and about 75 per cent for minors), and have stabilised since then. The percentages of major and minor commercial decisions granted increased steadily, from 88 and 86 per cent respectively in 2008/09, to 94 and 91 per cent respectively in 2014/15, and have both been stable since then (Live Tables P120A and P120B, Figure 8).

Householder developments Householder developments are those develop-

ments to a residence which require planning permission such as extensions, loft conversions and conservatories (more details are in the Definitions section). The number of decisions on householder developments was 54,500 in the quarter ending September 2018, accounting for 52 per cent of all decisions, down six per cent from the 57,700 decisions in the quarter ending September 2017.

Authorities granted 91 per cent of these applications and decided 91 per cent within eight weeks or the agreed time (Detail of district matters decisions table).

Permitted development rights Planning permission for some types of development has been granted nationally through legislation, and the resulting rights are known as ‘permitted development rights’. In some cases, if the legislation is complied with, developments can go ahead without the requirement to notify the local planning authority and hence no way of capturing data exists. In other cases, the legislation requires an application to the local planning authority to determine whether prior approval is required (more details are in the Definitions section).

The results for the latest quarter for which they have been collected (July to September 2018) are included in Live Tables PDR1 (local authority level figures) and PDR2 (England totals). Of the 9,600 applications reported in the July to September quarter of 2018, prior approval was not required for 5,300, and permission was granted for 2,500 and refused for 1,800. This resulted in an overall acceptance rate 9 of 81 per cent.

Larger householder extensions accounted for 71 per cent of applications (7,600), with five per cent relating to office to residential changes and six per cent to agricultural to residential changes. ‘All other’ permitted development rights, accounted for 16 per cent of applications, unchanged from a year earlier.

Taking i) granted applications and ii) those for which prior approval was not required together, 7,800 applications were approved without having to go through the full planning process, down six per cent from a year earlier.

Within an overall decrease of eight per cent in the reported total number of PDR applications between July to September 2017 and July to September 2018: • larger householder extensions decreased by six per cent; • office to residential changes decreased by 26 per cent; • agricultural to residential changes decreased by 12 per cent; and • ‘all other’ permitted development rights decreased by nine per cent.

Figures for the total number of permitted development right applications made for changes to residential for quarters from July to September 2014 onwards are given in the quarterly worksheets in Live Table PDR1, which show that a total of 1,200 applications for changes to residential use were reported in July to September 2018, of which 900 (71 per cent) were given the go-ahead without having to go through the full planning process.

The overall acceptance rate for the eighteen quarters between the start of collection of detailed data in April 2014 and the end of September 2018 was 81 per cent. The rate initially dropped from 85 per cent in the quarter ending June 2014 to 79 per cent in the quarter ending December 2014, and has broadly stabilised since then (Live Table PDR2).

Overall during the eighteen quarters ending September 2018, district planning authorities reported 178,200 applications for prior approvals for permitted developments. For 100,800 (57 per cent) of them prior approval was not required, 43,600 (24 per cent) were granted and 33,700 (19 per cent) were refused (Figure 9) To put these recent figures into context, Live Table P128 and Figure 10 show how the number of ‘determination applications’ received remained broadly stable at around 5,000 to 8,000 per year from 2004/05 to 2012/13, but approximately doubled to 15,700 in 2013/14, following the creation of new permitted development right categories in May 2013.

Since April 2014, there have been 36,500 PDR applications in 2014/15, 41,400 in 2015/16, 41,500 in 2016/17 and 39,100 in 2017/18. The quarterly pattern since April 2014 reflects a combination of both: i) the introduction of new permitted development right categories on several occasions; and ii) the seasonal peaks and troughs that have previously also been observed for planning applications, as shown earlier in this release, in Figure 1 (Live Table PDR 2 and Figure 10).

The initially large increase since 2014 in report-

www.planninginlondon.com

ed numbers of PDR applications for a change of use (e.g. office to residential), followed by a more recent decrease, is consistent with the annual numbers of dwellings added to the net housing supply as a

result of a change of use. These have shown increases of 65 per cent in 2014/15, 48 per cent in 2015/16 and 22 per cent in 2016/17, and a decrease of 20 per cent in 2017/1810.. n

Issue 108 January-March 2019

37

BRIEFING | LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM

High streets, more Permitted Development rights and Letwin Minutes of the London Planning and Development Forum on 11th December 2018 at Rockwell Property. Full minute by Drummond Robson at planninginlondon.com > LP&DF Brian Waters welcomed the group with introductions and apologies.

DISCUSSION TOPICS 1 How the proposed merged high street use class could change town centres.

The Chairman welcomed Mark Williams, Director of the Hark Group (an asset management company advising local authorities) and Michael Bach who offered different approaches.

In November 2013 Mark Williams presented a taskforce report entitled Beyond Retail to introduce the idea of redefining the shape and purpose of town centres. Awareness of its significance has so far been slow, but the recent economic situation has brought it into sharper focus. In 2013 the key issues identified were in brief summary: 1. Need for Local leadership 2. Polarisation with strong centres becoming stronger and including both shopping and leisure and the weak weaker 3. Too much retail floorspace leading to high vacancy rates 4. The wrong type of space offering inadequate showroom potential. It was considered that more permitted rights would help.

5. Understanding the catchment demographics and shopping patterns (both role in the shopping hierarchy and tenant mix for managed centres).

6. Car parking – free parking to attract rather than deter customers and longer lasting accessibility.

7. Business rates to manage the balance of taxation for online retailing and their higher outgoing retail-

Meeting on 11th December 2018. at Rockwell Property, with Jonathan Manns as host Brian Waters (chairman) Jonathan Manns (vice-chairman) David Hyde-Harrison: Architect Daniel Bentley: Civitas Gavin McLaughlin: TfL (towards the end) Jessica Ferm: UCL Jonathan Manns: Rockwell Properties Ltd Kim Taylor: Architectural assistant to

38

Planning in London

ers with fixed premises.

8. Digitising the high street. At present High Street footfall is eroded by reducing impulse shopping because shoppers do not pass the shop window or enter the shop to see goods and services they may not have seen as attractions. (Contextual marketing).

9. Poor qualities of cultural offer and heritage and public realm.

10. Funding : bridging the funding gap between the high infrastructure needs of town centres and the mechanisms to pay for them.

Through using next generation retail ‘Spot Market’ and augmented reality technologies, delivered through multiple channels, including shoppers’ David Hyde-Harrison Mark Williams: Hark Group Michael Bach: London Forum Nigel Abbott: WYG Peter Eversden: London Forum Rob Krzyszowski: LB Brent Ron Heath: RIBA Tom Venables: Prior and Partners Drummond Robson: Honorary Secretary Apologies from Mark Charlton, David Bradley & Trevor Sutters

smart phone devices, a complementary and enabling digital layer will be created to support the traditional high street retailing environment. In particular, this will: • Empower local businesses to issue targeted and relevant offers based on preferences which consumers have agreed to share.

• Generate higher conversion rates and resultant sales for local retailers as a result of this technological innovation enabling greater relevancy and improved referrals.

• Increase footfall to, and provide enhanced navigation of, the high street – especially for businesses not occupying traditionally considered ‘prime retail’ locations – by creating greater visibility of an areas ‘total high street proposition’.

• Define a new business model for the delivery of next generation retail Spot Market technologies.

This project represents a collaborative approach between Kent County Council, Microsoft, Canterbury City Council, Canterbury City Partnership and Think Agency.

The Country’s referendum to separate ourselves from the world’s largest trading block coupled with the substantial growth in on-line shopping have led major traders such as Sports Direct billionaire Mike Ashley who has recently acquired House of Fraser in a declining economy to warn that the "high street is

dead on the operating table" and that "web boys" that make at least 20 per cent of their retail revenue online should be taxed to help resuscitate traditional high street shopping.

Mark reinforced this concern and opened by saying that there was some 25% too much retail space and this has now become 40% too much, and more mixed use space is needed.

It should always be remembered that shopping is an optional choice for customers and no-one is forcing them to shop - so gentler inducements and encouragements are needed if the shopping experi-

www.planninginlondon.com

ence is to remain enjoyable as well as sustained.

It is equally true that multiple retailers with strong covenants are treated quite differently by institutional landlords with significant landholdings from independent and sole traders and family businesses, but nevertheless the healthy shopping centre needs both minor and specialist outlets and household names.

Infrastructure costs are not met by the resultant returns (2013 point 10).

Mark cited the example of the difficulties of infrastructure funding for the Brent Cross expansion

as evidence for the tenth key issue above.

He also said that local authorities no longer have people with the necessary experience to manage major town centre change. It also too needs to be recognised that regeneration is almost inevitably a long term project.

Discussion (Part 1) Peter Eversden referred to his west London experience in Chiswick where upper level storage is replace by residential for up to 6 or 7 storeys. He wondered why this should not be on the ground >>>

Issue 108 January-March 2019

39

BRIEFING | LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM

>>> floor. Mark responded suggesting that most of the space is owned by private investors and this would be contrary to their SIPs (sales investment programmes). Ground floor shopping has a particular value (particularly zone A - the front part of the shop - in agency terms).

Brian Waters suggested that relaxing the interface between A1 and A3 might counter the claim that there was no demand for some ground floor space.

This provided a link to introduce Michael Bach of the London Forum of Amenity & Civic Societies for his associated presentation before the discussion continued.

How proposed changes to use classes could change town centres in London MB’s presentation sought to answer “How proposed changes to use classes could change London’s town centres”. His experience is based on previously working for predecessors of MHCLG on: • 1980s: Inner Cities policy: considered impact of 1987 UCO changes; and • 1990s & 2000s: National planning policy for town centres & town centre uses – for 2005 UCO this included possible merging of A use classes <150sqm – impact assessment showed damage.

He considered key lessons to be: • Change to UCO is a blunt tool: one-size-fits-all approach creates collateral damage, a blunderbuss cannot target local needs • A rising tide does not raise all ships – places with no market remain unaffected, places where market operates still need a policy framework that delivers positive change • Need locally-determined priorities – a town centre partnership/strategy, not disruptive edicts from the centre • Town centres need a strong, coherent and consistent policy framework Recent changes to UCO: last 5 years. Why has UCO been chosen as vehicle for change? Political philosophy or practical problem solving?

• Offices to housing – quick “win” on housing numbers, but without regard to “town centre first” policy – unpacking the critical mass of economic activity, damaging to town centres, but presented as beneficial • A1, A2, A3 & launderettes – to housing: how was that meant to help town centres? Which town centres?

• A1 to A2 & A3: changing composition of primary retail frontages.

Need to test whether any of this helps town centres – if not, why should more of the same help?

Nobody does impact assessment – just political rhetoric? Look at “claims” in Consultation Document. Current Consultation Aims: • allow greater change of use to support high streets

40

Planning in London

to adapt and diversify – change to a wider range of uses • more leisure and community uses, eg gyms, libraries, health care & offices, as well as homes!

Really – high street ground floor uses? Diversity or more of the same? Offices on ground floor as “dead” as housing! Need reality check! Little of this will happen, but what does may not be beneficial to town centre • modernisation of the high street and enable businesses to adapt to changes in consumer demand – provide a quicker, more certain route to enable business to adapt and help town centres to remain vibrant • mostly not about helping businesses adapt, but property owners to seek new tenants. Not necessarily about helping the town centre.

Proposed Changes: • A1, A2, A5 + launderettes to offices – replacing lost offices? But why ground floor uses?

• Temporary change of use of A use class (except pubs), B1, D1 & D2 to A1, A2, A3 or B1 – almost from anything to anything, including to “certain community uses”, for up to 3 years • Possible new class of mixed A1, A2 and A3 uses – greater flexibility, but reduces ability to distinguish between shops and restaurant uses Question: would this support the high street?

Which high streets? Big centres – don’t need it?

Small centres – potentially destabilising. How much of this is just political rhetoric? Where is the impact assessment? Later?

Conclusions: • The high street is changing and will continue to do so.

• Changing the UCO is a blunt, one-size-fits-all tool – there could be winners but also losers: will this help town centres? Businesses? Or landlords?

• Is this political rhetoric or the way to revitalise town centres?

• Would these changes help or hinder town centre strategies to revitalise town centres?

• Much of this could be a one-way trip – will this produce vital and viable town centres?

Discussion (Part 2): Mark Williams suggested that the recognised formula that retail values outprice others in town centres is no longer applying and also costs are currently outweighing returns so that regeneration of centres is struggling in consequence.

Tom Venables cited 3D printing as a new technology of use associated with town centres for which there was no longer saved industrial space as older manufacturing sites are disappearing, all to be replaced by housing. This reinforces the difficulty faced by any hoped for resurgence in manufacturing.

Michael Bach was concerned at the destruction

and loss of historic centres in the interests of “short termism” which declining values produces.

Rob Krzyszowski said that local authorities were responding this change in situation with encouragements to increase town centre footfall and safeguard centres from dead frontages.

Michael Bach said there is a need for landlords to find new tenants.

Mark Williams considered that local authorities need to be more specific in what they want. (His strong local leadership).

Ron Heath pointed out the difficulties local authorities have in dealing with objections to schemes by both residents and retailers, and that out of town industrial space was therefore the answer. Mark Williams cautioned to be careful what you wish for.

He was also concerned that there need to be changes in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 which has currently become an impediment to investment and long term decline in shop rentals. Brian Waters suggested that the long cycle of development plans was not coping with the rapid shifts in monetary values but concurred tht multiple ownership can be a problem for the investor. He commended the use of Class V of the GPDO which achieves the flexibility of permission for multiple uses..

Rob Krzsowski thought that the Use Classes Order was largely irrelevant to the wider aims of town centre management for peripheral frontages, including being sympathetic to conversions (although he could not condone A5 hot food takeaways being changed to residential).

The broad conclusion was that in London the proposed UCO changes were largely irrelevant and unhelpful – what mattered was strong local commitment to town centre management.

Discussion Topic 2 Independent Review of Build Out Rates. Rt Hon Sir Oliver Letwin MP. Rob Sumner of Sigma Capital was invited to open the discussion but was unable to attend.

The independent review of build out was announced by government at Budget 2017 and was led by the Rt Hon Sir Oliver Letwin MP. In the review’s final report Sir Oliver Letwin makes recommendations on how to close the significant gap between the number of housing completions and the amount of land allocated or permissioned on large sites in areas of high housing demand.

Letwin concludes in his Final Report that Government could increase the variety and differentiation of what is offered on large sites, raise the proportion of affordable housing, and raise the rate of build out. Government should: • adopt a new set of planning rules specifically designed to apply to all future large sites (initially those over 1,500 units) in areas of high housing

demand, requiring those developing such sites to provide a diversity of offerings, in line with diversification principles in a new planning policy document; and • establish a National Expert Committee to advise local authorities on the interpretation of diversity requirements for large sites and to arbitrate where the diversity requirements cause an appeal as a result of disagreement between the local authority and the developer.

• provide incentives to diversify existing sites of over 1,500 units in areas of high housing demand, by making any future government funding for house builders or potential purchasers on such sites conditional upon the builder accepting a Section 106 agreement which conforms with the new planning policy for such sites; and • consider allocating a small amount of funding to a large sites viability fund to prevent any interruption of development on existing large sites that could otherwise become non-viable for the existing builder as a result of accepting the new diversity provisions.

More recently there is a House of Commons Briefing Paper entitled Tackling the undersupply of Housing in England which provides links to the most recent ONS housing supply data. It also includes

www.planninginlondon.com

such as the summary chart ABOVE. David Bentley of Civitas was invited to be a spokesperson in place of Rob Sumner. He considered that the situation in London was not comparable since values here are so much higher than elsewhere, with the consequence that the market absorption rate is the big problem. Land needs to change hands at profitable rates. Land speculation is on an international scale. Developers are unable to price infrastructure costs with certainty or accuracy.

There needs to be a diversity of output and account needs to be taken of older people.

Nigel Abbott of WYG said that at the present absorption rates it would take between 100 and 225 years to achieve the hoped for rates of housing delivery and that Letwin’s approach needed to drive down values way beyond current hope values.

Other topics Brief discussion introduced by Gavin McLaughlin of TfL on Healthy Streets. GM was detained at his previous meeting and it was agreed to postpone his presentation until the next available LPDF meeting.

Permitted development rights in general and office conversions in particular. Dr Jessica Ferm of UCL gave a presentation.

JF began by introducing the October 2018 consultation paper by MHCLG: Planning Reform: Supporting the high street and increasing the delivery of new homes. The consultation runs until 14 January 2018.

She summarised the key elements of the consultation paper as follows: PD rights to allow upward extensions to create residential units on: • commercial and residential buildings, subject to prevailing rooflines and a maximum of 5 storeys • free-standing residential blocks • health and leisure centres and out-of-town retail and leisure parks Demolition of commercial buildings and redevelopment for residential uses Allow shops (A1) financial and professional services (A2), hot food takeaways (A5), betting shops, pay day loan shop and launderettes to change to office use (B1). Also proposing to allow hot food takeaways (A5) to change to residential use (C3).

JF set out what she considered the important questions to answer.

• Is planning the barrier to delivery currently?

• What might the impacts be on quality, as well as quantity?

• Who gains, who loses?

• What are the benefits v opportunity costs? (affordable housing, funding for infrastructure) • What are the implications for delivery of sustainable communities?

Three recent publications funded by the RICS Research Trust are: • A report on the impacts of office-to-residential permitted development by Clifford, Ferm, Canelas & Livingstone: https://tinyurl.com/officetoresi • A separate study by University of Sheffield academics on extending permitted development more generally: https://tinyurl.com/ExercisingPD • A joint summary of key findings from both reports: https://tinyurl.com/ExtendingPD The presentation given focused on some of the key findings of the report on office to residential permitted development by Clifford et al. Unless stated otherwise, photographs are credited to Ben Clifford.

Since May 2013, it has been possible to convert a building from office to residential use without planning permission. This is intended to boost the supply of housing but also to help regeneration through reuse of vacant office space. The impact assessment for this policy change predicted that: • There would be no financial costs from this change • There could be administrative cost savings to LPAs Applications for change of use under this policy would be small in number (140 applications per year in England) The policy would be unlikely to lead to additional infrastructure requirements or housing in unsus- >>>

Issue 108 January-March 2019

41

BRIEFING | LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM

>>> tainable locations The study approach has been: • to test these assumptions • Two stages of case study: selected five quite different LPAs with high rates of office-to-residential in England (Camden, Croydon, Leeds, Leicester & Reading) and for each conducted a data analysis of all proposed conversions 2013-17 through PD and comparator planning application schemes, conducted site visits to 568 buildings and stakeholder interviews (30) then looked in greater detail at the individual scheme level (desk based analysis of plans/ proposals) for 45 buildings • international comparisons were conducted with Glasgow and Rotterdam too, including site visits and interviews It is important to remember that the statistics count Housing Numbers not Homes. Also they include duplications from multiple applications for the same building and some authorities only monitor larger schemes.

Overall rates of conversion are set out IN THE TABLE ABOVE..

Briefly put the conclusions are: • Conversion rates: 10,100 prior notifications in first 3 years (DCLG, 2017), only 48% of which were granted.

• ‘they haven’t put on any onerous, pre-commencement conditions…You can crack on pretty quickly’

42

Planning in London

[speed] • Leeds (North): larger schemes (city centre) targeted at students or marketed as apart-hotels • On periphery, poor quality housing on industrial estates – planners concerned about ‘liveability’ • Leicester (Midlands): low quality private rental stock undermining growth of regulated Private Rental, HMOs • Croydon (London): temporary housing for residents on Council’s housing waiting list.

In considering the quality of life and place, quali-

Sourse: Google Street View

ty varied enormously. Also there are concerns with residential amenity • There are some high quality developments but examples of ‘studio’ flats just 15m2 • Just 30% of PD units meet national space standards compared to 94% with planning permission • Less likely to have access to private or communal amenity space (balconies, roof terraces) – just 6% of the PD units. No consideration given to access to play space for children • 77% PD units are studios or one beds (compared

to 37% with planning permission). Cater to a very narrow segment of the residential market / can lead to overcrowding • No requirement that the office space is actually vacant so there are examples of businesses being pushed out by housing conversion. This means there is no spatial decision making role for councils.

This is also reflected in residential schemes being simply in the wrong place.

Some financial implications are: Direct evidence of profitability of conversions for developers e.g. Emerald House in Croydon: Land Registry shows the building sold in February 2014 for £10,000,000 (before prior approval) and then again in December 2015 (after prior approval was received but before conversion to flats) for £19,000,000. Other similar examples found.

However, schemes do not make any contribution towards local public infrastructure through planning gain, leading to a potential loss of income of £10.8million in S106 contributions and 1,667 affordable housing units across our five case study authorities In conclusion Jess Ferm said that • Regulation matters for the planning system • Mainstream view of increasing supply at all costs ‘to solve the housing crisis’ privileges quantity over quality • Neglects problems of the dis-economies of entirely market led provision • Market is ‘short-term-ist’. Exploits market niches (in student accommodation etc), doesn’t adequately prioritise quality or social sustainability • Whatever the quality, no contributions to the additional public infrastructure needed to support the additional housing or providing affordable housing • Alternatives to deregulation – government could achieve quantity AND quality through more proactive approach Peter Eversden thought that the conversions of office to residential have resulted in some dreadful developments in Hounslow.

FINALLY...

Jonathan Manns was confirmed to be vice-chairman of the Forum.

The Minutes of the previous meeting were confirmed, and the next meeting will be with the Cambridge University Land Society, the ACA and the National Planning Forum to be held on March 19th 2019 at Dentons.

Government chief planning officer Steve Quartermain has agreed to give the keynote with his usual planning update and the main topic is to be housing and new settlements looking at the OxfordMK-Cambridge Corridor proposals and their relationship to existing and renewed infrastructure, partly as a way of releasing pressures on the Capital. n

Residential conversions ABOVE: of appropriate buildings?

BELOW: In the right locations?

Image: Google Earth

Annual Planning Update Tuesday 19th March at Dentons 1 Fleet Place EC4M 7WS

Housing and new settlements: The CaMKoX Arc

1.30 FOR 2.00pm followed by drinks In association with

Keynote: The Government’s agenda for planning

by Steve Quartermain (MHCLG Chief Planner) Followed at 6.00pm by Networking reception sponsored by Dentons BOOK AT: https://www.culandsoc.com or call 01638 507843

www.planninginlondon.com

Issue 108 January-March 2019

43

ANDREW ROGERS

Dan Dare Planner Of The Future The RTPI is very keen for planners and planning to have a higher popular profile. Andy Rogers suggests how this could be done by adding to familiar extracts from literary and other favourites “Last night I dreamt I went to Manderley again …

The house was a sepulchre, our fear and suffering lay buried in the ruins. There would be no resurrection.”

The planners had determined that a residential use had been abandoned and I thought that surely the conservation officer would not recommend construction of a new home in this area of outstanding natural beauty.

“‘But isn’t it a bit dull at times?’ the Mole ventured to ask. ‘Just you and the river, and no one else to pass a word with?’ ‘No one else to - well, I mustn’t be hard on you,’ said the Rat with forbearance. ‘The bank is so crowded … many people are moving away altogether.’”

And it doesn’t help, he thought, when we’re now a flood risk area so that no new or extended homes are being allowed by the local planners.

“It was the largest and most famous chocolate factory in the whole world! It was WONKA’s FACTORY… It had huge iron gates leading into it, and a high wall surrounding it, and smoke belching from its chimneys, and strange whizzing sounds coming from deep inside it. And outside the walls, for half a mile around in every direction, the air was scented with the heavy rich small of melting chocolate!”

“Good heavens” said the newly-elected Head of Planning “How on earth did this monstrosity get permission in a residential area? We must surely consider enforcement action without delay.”

“Ogilvy, who had seen the shooting star, and who was persuaded that a meteorite lay somewhere on the common between Horsell, Ottersaw and Woking, rose early with the idea of finding it. … The Thing itself lay almost entirely buried in sand… The uncovered part had the appearance of a huge cylinder, caked over and its outline softened by a thick scaly dun-coloured incrustation.”

We immediately decided to contact the chair of the Planning Committee in order to discover if a planning application for this unusual construction in the Green Belt had been approved.

“‘Yes’ said the bear. ‘I emigrated, you know.’ A sad expression came into its eyes. ‘I used to live with my Aunt Lucy in Peru, but she had to go into a home for retired bears’ … ‘It all seems highly irregular, said Mr Brown, doubtfully. ‘I’m sure there’s a law about it.’ He bent down. ‘Would you like to come and stay with us?’ he asked.” ’We have a town house with other lodgers, but you would be the sixth occupant and with an HMO application I’m sure it will be fine.’

“‘My dear Lizzy, where can you have been walking to?’ was a question which Elizabeth received from Jane as soon as she entered the room … Darcy was not of a disposition in which happiness overflows in mirth..”

Although swimming in the lake is an activity incidental to the enjoyment of their dwelling, Mr Bennet had been told that it was not within the curtilage and therefore planning permission for changing facilities would be required.

Extracts from: Reign of the Robots (Eagle comic) drawn by Frank Hampson; Rebecca, by Daphne Du Maurier; Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

by Roald Dahl; A Bear Called Paddington by Michael Bond; The Wind in the Willows by Kenneth Graham; The War of the Worlds by HG Wells; Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen; The Hobbit by JRR Tolkien; and Kubla Kahn by Samuel Taylor Coleridge

“In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat: it was hobbit-hole, and that meant comfort.”

What’s more, thought Bilbo as he contemplated a possible career as a local planner, it’s a hole that complies in all respects with the nationally described space standards…

—“Literature is a luxury; fiction is a necessity."

– G K Chesterton 1901

44

Planning in London

“In Xanadu did Kubla Khan A stately pleasure-dome decree: Where Alph, the sacred river, ran Through caverns measureless to man Down to a sunless sea.”

The planners said it’s very plain There is a case for planning gain: So twice five miles of fertile ground With walls and towers were girdled round: And there’s a legal paper, see Demanding sunny spots of greenery.

But oh! that deep Appeal Court case That claimed the 106 was flawed... n

[That’s enough of this nonsense – Ed.]

CLICKS VS BRICKS | STEFANIE PRICE

Is online retail a threat or opportunity to bricks and mortar retail?

Clicks vs Bricks: is internet shopping the future or is there space for the "real" shopping experience as well? asks Stefanie Price

First published in the 2018 Magazine of the Cambridge University Land Society with kind consent: https://www.culandsoc.com

High street retailers have undergone a torrid time over the last few years and indications are that this is set to continue. Store closures, job losses and administrations are regular occurrences and whilst they make for sensationalist headlines, and illustrate that this is a changing market. At the same time, online retailers and online sales have been booming.

Online retail, and the widespread adoption of the smartphone, has changed where we shop, how we shop and our expectations of the process itself. However, is it all bad news for bricks and mortar, or is the changing world an opportunity to improve and develop the retail real estate sector?

Online Retail Threat Every week seems to bring another headline of an ailing high street favourite. Discount retailer Poundworld, electronics firm Maplin, toy retailer Toys R Us and department store House of Fraser are just some of the recent retailers who have gone into administration, putting hundreds of stores and thousands of jobs at risk. As shown on the below graph, the UK’s high streets suffered 5,855 store closures in 2017, as traditional retailers have been impacted by the rise of internet shopping.

In 2017, an average of 11 stores a day opened, while 16 a day closed.

Whilst there is a net loss of physical stores in the UK, year on year, online sales are rising. According to BDO’s High Street Sales Tracker, online sales in the UK in December 2017 were up 21.4% on December 2016. The chart below starkly illustrates the slow steady increase in retail sales and the sharp incline of ecommerce.

And the predictions for the future are even stronger. Research

firm Forrester expects Europe’s online retail market to be worth €378bn a year by 2021, with the UK, France and Germany accounting for 69%. In the UK alone, online shopping could account for almost a fifth of total retail sales by 2021.

The internet age and growth of social media has brought about the opportunities for different types of retail and the figures seem to suggest that these technological opportunities are threatening the high street. Social media and user-generated content has meant that brands now can reach millions of consumers in an instant, for free. Goods you didn't even know existed or wanted flash before your eyes and with a few clicks they're yours! This is a world away from heading to the shops to search out something you specifically need, and spending hours doing so in packed town centres with tempers fraying.

Consumers enjoy the flexibility and ease of online shopping and the huge time saving they can bring about. Generous returns policies and quick delivery times often make online shopping a >>>

RIGHT: Opening and closures of multiple retailer units, 2013-2017 (Source: PwC)

Stefanie Price is Senior Associate at Baker McKenzie Real Estate

www.planninginlondon.com

Issue 108 January-March 2019

45

CLICKS VS BRICKS | STEFANIE PRICE

>>> much easier and more stress free experience than heading down to the shops. Offices often permit personal online deliveries to be delivered and distributed to employees, and self service Amazon lockers are becoming readily available, thereby taking away the necessity of waiting at home for a delivery.

Major online retailers continue to seek ways to make online shopping even easier. Both Amazon and Google, for example, have partnered with retailers to offer voice-controlled shopping, with their virtual assistants (Amazon’s Alexa and Google Home) being able to order for consumers and set up repeat subscriptions. In the online fashion sector, ASOS has applied visual search technology to enable consumers to photograph an item of clothing they like and then search for similar items stocked by ASOS. This is a fast changing space and we've not seen the end, as new and innovative online retailing ideas continue to be developed.

However, is it the future, or is there space for the "real" shopping experience as well?

Online Retail Opportunity If you think that bricks and mortar are on the way out, take note that online sales are in fact still a long way off dominating the shopping scene: online retailing accounted for about 17% of total retail sales in September 2017, according to the Office for National Statistics. The trend is increasing, but bricks and mortar still dominate. It is thought that 90% of retail still touches a physical store. However, traditional retailers cannot afford to rest on their laurels.

There are lots of frustrating aspects of the instore experience, such as unhelpful staff and endless check-out queues, which are putting consumers off hitting the high-street. However, as online retailing spurs competition, it is an opportunity to enhance what consumers have always enjoyed about in-store experiences such as the joy of discovery, atmosphere, scent and tangible interaction. This ensures that physical stores continue to serve as a crucial touchpoint in purchases Instead, what we are seeing is a need for retailers to adopt omnichannel shopping; a seamless online and offline experience as the new industry standard for consumers. This strengthens customer engagement and brand interaction, as well as creating a strong element of convenience for shoppers.

Consumers represent all ends of the spectrum;

46

Planning in London

from the millennials who use their phones for the majority of their consumer journey and prefer an instore pickup to save time, to the affluent lady who needs to try on that expensive Chanel dress before purchasing, or the family who look forward to the seasonal experience of visiting Harrods or Hamleys each year for presents. To attract these consumer groups, and everything in between, it is essential for retailers to provide convenience via their online platform, but also a memorable brand experience instore. A new word "consutainment" is being coined - the integration of ultra-convenience, consumption, and entertainment.

There are many, and growing, examples of retailers that have adapted to "consutain" the modern clientele. These include pet-friendly stores (grab a puppuccino at Starbucks whilst you are out shopping in other pet friendly stores), customer-controlled music options and greater personalisation.

For example, one of Nike’s latest in-store innovations allows you to customise a shoe in store and pick it up within an hour. This gives consumers a sense of individualism from purchasing something not mass produced, but at the same time provides an impetus to visit Nike’s physical store.

Even Amazon, hailed as one of the ultimate

online retailers, is turning to bricks and mortar in the US (and surely to follow globally) and starting to open stores.

In the UK luxury market, Matches Fashion is another example of an online retailer turning to bricks and mortar. They maintain a couple of showrooms in London so consumers can touch and experience the products, and have access to helpful and knowledgeable staff. Their sales aren’t reliant on instore purchases, but the showrooms enhance the online presence.

So it seems that there is a future for bricks and mortar but only the most innovative and adaptable will survive. Retail is evolving faster than ever and customer expectations are higher than ever before, but fortunately for retailers and consumers, technology is aiding the transition to retail future that looks different, but hopefully to the benefit of all.

On a personal note, I still prefer a stroll around the shops on a Saturday with friends, sharing the experience trying on and touching the products, and stopping for a cup of tea or a G and T (depending on the time of day!) on the way. For me it's much better than making purchases in your pyjamas in front of a computer…... Let's hope that other consumers agree. n

OPINION: PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP | MATTHEW WEINER

Putting the partnership back into PPP We need to restore faith in the private and public sectors working together for the common good says Matthew Weiner

Matthew Weiner is CEO of developer U+I

47

Planning in London

Last year, we saw the launch of the Mayor of London’s new London Development Panel (LDP). An important step in a city where there is a great need for new homes, offices and workspaces, but where land often remains frustratingly difficult to develop. The Panel, of which we are a member, is expected to help bring forward up to £20bn worth of development land over the next four years, presenting an exciting opportunity to unlock untapped potential in public land across the capital. It’s also an opportunity to demonstrate the power of partnership.

The LDP will create a network of developers, housing associations and contractors with whom public bodies can work to accelerate the development of public land. It’s a great opportunity to use our expertise gained on our PPP projects to regenerate even more communities across London.

PPP is our specialism for a reason.

We’ve long known that holistic and transparent public-private collaborations are the answer to the challenge of making more productive use of the public land our country owns. There’s also a major financial imperative: local authorities have less money to spend, meaning working with private sector partners is essential if we are to deliver the development we all want and need.

But if projects like these – and the sites the LDP will bring forward for development – are to be a success, we need to rebuild trust in the spirit of PPP. In recent years, that term has been tarnished, open to misinterpretation and misuse. Often it’s been confused with

Private Finance Initiatives (PFI) which have now abolished following high profile failures such as the collapse of Carillion. Yet here is much that is good about the private and public sector working together for the benefit of all – which is why we want to restore faith in that for the benefit of London and the UK more widely.

That starts with listening. As a developer specialising in mixed-use and regeneration schemes, we bring a lot of knowledge and expertise to our partnerships.

But we don’t know everything. So it’s important to work with our partners to find areas of common interest and start our plans from there. Only then can we understand what makes a place unique and bring out the richness of its heritage while also creating spaces for the future.

And just as we think it’s important to listen to our partners, we also think it’s important to listen to others in our industry – and beyond. That’s why in November, we launched the findings of our consultation, PPP: The Reset.

Through a series of roundtable discussions and stakeholder interviews, we spoke to representatives from the public, private and civic sectors to find out what is and what isn’t working when it comes to the delivery of PPP. The consultation helped us distil what lies at the heart of great PPP and suggest a way forward to ensure these characteristics remain at the centre of future developments.

What all those involved concluded is that good PPP is ultimately a genuine partnership between equals, where public and private sector are united by a shared vision and purpose. It’s also

focused on the community, authentically engaging with local voices to create something which truly responds to what local people want and need.

We want to ensure this remains the reality for the developments we create, so we have made a series of business commitments to hold ourselves to account in how we deliver our PPP schemes. This includes establishing an independent community challenge panel which will bring together representatives from the public sector, civic society and other developers and the appointment of a new Non-Executive Director to oversee it. On certain schemes, we’ll also share any profit we make above an agreed projected return with our public partner and the local community directly via a Community Profit Share Arrangement.

Why have we made these commitments? Because we want to keep using PPP to create great places. Homes, yes, but also community assets, student beds, libraries, retail, leisure, work and enterprise spaces: places where people live, work and play. Take our site at 8 Albert Embankment, where we’ll be delivering a new fire station at no cost to the public purse, or our Central Research Laboratory at The Old Vinyl Factory in Hayes, South West London, the UK’s first purpose-built hardware accelerator space.

Building complex mixed-use sites like this at the heart of our cities doesn’t happen without partnership. That’s why we’re determined to do our part in helping to create the right conditions for the public sector to continue to work closely with us to develop unique places where communities across the UK can thrive. n

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE | NICK FERGUSON

The growth of green infrastructure The growth of green infrastructure will assist the UK in adapting to the challenges presented by climate change and its transition to a low carbon future says Nick Ferguson

Nick Ferguson is Associate in the Environment and Planning Team at Ashurst

48

Planning in London

The incorporation of green infrastructure in development projects is rising in popularity, not least because of the commitments made by the Government to tackle climate change and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Green infrastructure has the potential to aid in reducing the UK's GHG emissions and therefore, in this article we look at just what green infrastructure is, the policy background, and the incentives for the development industry to innovate and invest in green infrastructure.1 What is green infrastructure?

Green infrastructure aids in combatting some of the impacts of climate change, it can improve air and water quality, store carbon, have a cooling effect and reduce carbon emissions from the energy used to heat and cool homes and businesses. Green infrastructure encompasses a wide range of natural and built environments, from parks and woodlands, to green living roofs and terraces, green living walls and residential gardens.

Policy basis/background In an effort to tackle climate change, the Government has committed to reducing the UK's GHG emissions from 1990 levels by at least 80 per cent by 2050. It has released plans and strategies to assist it in achieving this aim and to encourage sustainable growth.

On 11 January 2018 the Government published the UK's 25 Year Environment Plan which sets out the goals for improving the natural environment and moving to a low carbon economy. The Plan provides information on how the Government will work with communities and businesses to achieve these goals. The Plan sits alongside two other sister Government strategies: the Industrial Strategy2 and the Clean Growth Strategy3.

The Clean Growth Strategy sets out proposals for the long term decarbonisation of the UK economy and re-confirms the UK Government's commitment to environmentally sustainable growth. The Industrial Strategy seeks to sets out how UK industry can maximise the advantages of the UK and global transition to low carbon economies.

One of the aims of the Clean Growth Strategy is to reduce the emissions created by heating UK homes and businesses, this is reported as accounting for almost a third of UK GHG emissions.

Higher quality, more energy efficient buildings are healthier places to live and work, and have the advantage of reducing emissions and heating bills. The Industrial Strategy aims to mobilise and stimulate the private sector to innovate and invest in energy efficient and healthy buildings.

As an example, the Industrial Strategy's "transforming construction" programme aims to transform the construction industry to make buildings more affordable, efficient, safer and healthier. To do this, the Government will invest up to £170 million,

matched by £250 million from industry, to create new building processes and techniques. The Government seeks to incentivise greater private investment in household and commercial building energy efficiency and support innovation in what it calls low carbon infrastructure. This, together with the recent ban on leasing private buildings with an energy performance certificate rating less than E, illustrates the Government's commitment to supporting adaptation to climate change and green growth, and should encourage innovation and investment in green (or low carbon) infrastructure. This will lead to more efficient, healthier and environmentally friendly buildings with lower embodied and operational carbon emissions.

The 25 Year Environment Plan sets out that the Government will ensure that all policies, programmes and investment decisions take into account the possible extent of climate change this century, further suggesting that innovation and investment in such things as green infrastructure is set to grow.

The case for green infrastructure The UK Green Building Council, a registered charity representing the construction and property industry and advocating a sustainable built environment, has identified a number of opportunities that establish a business and investment case for green infrastructure4. These can be looked at as incentives for industry to innovate and invest in. The most notable ones are as follows: • Planning – planning permission could be refused or delayed if green infrastructure is not incorporated appropriately.

Conversely, green infrastructure could help an application to be looked upon favourably, for example if the development, the subject of the application, looks to reduce building carbon emissions and combat urban heat island effects.

• Construction – it can be more cost efficient to work with the landscape and habitats than to replace them with hard engineered systems. This can also reduce emissions caused during construction by working with rather than against the natural environment.

• Operation – green living walls, roofs and courtyards can reduce the temperature of a building reducing the cost of air conditioning and carbon emissions output and protect the structure from the effects of heat, again reducing a building's energy use, running costs and emissions.

Another body representing land and property professionals, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, has released a professional statement stating that its members must assess both the operational and the embodied carbon emissions over the whole lifecycle of a real estate asset so that the best combined opportunities for reducing lifetime emissions can be identified5.

The objective of this statement is the mitigation of carbon emissions and climate change impacts in the built environment. It

aims to promote long term thinking past project practical completion, and it is hoped that this statement will encourage and incentivise developers, property professionals and their clients to pursue reductions in building carbon emissions. Ways to pursue this could include considering green infrastructure early in the building design process, investing in new green infrastructure practices, and incorporating green infrastructure into residential, commercial and public development schemes.

There are also broader assessments such as the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) sustainability assessment for buildings6. This assessment tool stimulates developers and property professionals into addressing building sustainability which ultimately encourages the incorporation of green infrastructure into building design. The use of BREEAM for any development project has the environmental benefit of reduced embodied and operational carbon impacts and increased building energy efficiency. BREEAM encourages greener practices, innovation in energy management and the uptake and use of green infrastructure in development. This has the ultimate effect of aiding in the reduction of carbon emissions created by heating and cooling homes and businesses.

Public interest also plays a part in driving the development of green infrastructure in the property sector. For example, the WELL Building Standard7 can be attributed at least in part to public

www.planninginlondon.com

demand and people's desire to live and work in environmentally friendly buildings that promote health and wellbeing. The Standard is aligned with the aims and objectives of green infrastructure, and plays an important part in encouraging the public's interest in green buildings and environmentally conscious building practices such as green infrastructure. Ultimately, the WELL Building Standard like BREEAM, provides an incentive for the industry to develop buildings that have lower carbon emissions.

In conclusion The development and building industry is being encouraged and incentivised to innovate and invest in energy efficient and health buildings, and this will encourage the uptake and growth of green infrastructure in development projects. Incentives are coming from both the Government under its policies and strategies, and industry itself through professional bodies and development standards. The growth of green infrastructure will ultimately aid in the Government reaching its GHG emissions reduction targets, and assist the UK in adapting to the challenges presented by climate change and its transition to a low carbon future. n First published in the 2018 Magazine of the Cambridge University Land Society with kind consent: https://www.culandsoc.com

FOOTNOTES 1 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/25-year-environment-plan 2 https://www.gov.uk/government/topical-events/the-uksindustrial-strategy 3 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/clean-growthstrategy 4 https://www.ukgbc.org/ukgbcwork/demystifying-green-infrastructure/ 5 http://www.rics.org/uk/knowledge/professional-guidance/professional-statements/whole-lifecarbon-assessment-for-the-builtenvironment-1st-edition/ 6 https://www.breeam.com/ 7 https://www.wellcertified.com/a bout-iwbi

Issue 108 January-March 2019

49

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

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

COMPETITIVE PRICES

1000 1000 500

a5 flyer

99

£

a4 flyer £

149 £29.99 W

price list business cards 85mm x 55mm

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

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

Posters

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

BIZ CARD

e have over 20 years

We deliver

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

professional fast high quality printing service

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

NPPF AND STRATEGIC PLANNING | SUE CHADWICK

The new NPPF introduces a two-tier hierarchy of policies: strategic and non-strategic Is the revised National Planning Policy Framework the beginning of the end for neighbourhood plans, asks Dr Sue Chadwick

Dr Sue Chadwick is a Strategic Planning Advisor with Pinsent Masons LLP

51

Planning in London

On 24th July the Government published the new Planning hood plans would interrelate with the existing plan system7.

Framework, introduced as "fundamental to strengthening Neighbourhood planning has indeed proved more problemcommunities and to delivering the homes communities atic in practice than in theory. The changes were implemented need2. This article considers whether the Framework also sig- in a piecemeal fashion, and tweaked through subsequent legisnals the resurgence of strategic policy – more than 8 years lation, leading one judge to comment that they could aptly be after Regional Spatial Strategies were “abolished” – and the described as a "statutory thicket”8. They have been a consistentparallel demise of neighbourhood plans ly disruptive element of the already complicated decision-mak. ing process generating significant case law on a number of dif“Thanked be fortune it hath been otherwise": the 2012 ferent issues, with most cases resolved in favour of the neighFramework and the shift towards localism bourhood plan.

In 2010 the newly elected Coalition Government criticised Neighbourhood plans have proliferated in areas of relative the existing suite of planning policy documents of being affluence where there is a community with the necessary time unwieldy and creating an incoherent and resources available, raising questions as to policy position. In their place, they pre“They flee from me their equity where such resources are scarce. sented a draft National Planning Policy that sometime did me As Teresa Pearce MP pointed out in the debate Framework. The Foreword to the 2011 on the Neighbourhood Planning Bill: “costs seek” (1535) draft announced that issues with the can exceed the moneys that the council current policy system would be receives… neighbourhood planning must be – Thomas Wyatt1 addressed by “dismantling the unacopen to all, and disadvantaged communities countable regional apparatus and introducing neighbourhood need to be able to participate.”9 planning” and one of its stated objectives was the proposal In spite of these issues, the number of neighbourhood plans “to put unprecedented power in the hands of communities to has increased exponentially - the most recent edition of the shape the places in which they live”.

“Notes on neighbourhood planning” announced the 500th refBy the time the 2012 Framework was adopted, both of erendum in favour of adoption of such a document. Until relathese changes were already in place. On 6th July 2010 Eric tively recently, the government has also continued to promote Pickles, then Secretary of State for the Department of this element of the planning system: in 2018 the then housing Communities and Local Government, announced that the gov- minister Dominic Raab stated that “We will continue to protect ernment planned to revoke Regional Strategies with a view to neighbourhood plans in national policy"10. Political rhetoric has returning decision-making powers on housing and planning to not, however, been supported by political reality. local councils and making the planning system “simpler, more efficient ….firmly rooted in the local community”.

“A strange fashion of forsaking”: the 2018 Framework and The validity of the decision was confirmed in subsequent a return to strategic planning case law3 and formally enacted in Section 109 of the Localism In December 2015 the Government began a consultation on Act 2011. The same Act introduced a new community-based the revision of the 2012 Framework11. This consultation doculayer of planning policy where local areas would propose and ment stated that the existing Framework reinforced the “cenpromote their own Neighbourhood Development Plans. tral role of local and neighbourhood plans in the planning Neighbourhood plans were described by Mr Pickles as a “tri- system”, did not mention the word strategic at all and proumph for democracy over bureaucracy”5 but Friends of the posed no substantial changes to the neighbourhood plan sysEarth were concerned that neighbourhood plans would produce tem. a planning postcode lottery while some academics went furIn March 2018 the Government began a further consultather, prophesying “an uneven geography of representation in tion on the Framework13. It contained a new paragraph 14 confavour of the better educated, well-off and more vocal social firming the new status of a neighbourhood in meeting housing groups”6. Even the Chief Executive of the British Property supply needs, first proposed in the Written Ministerial Federation expressed concerns about how easily neighbour- Statement in December 2016, “to provide additional certainty

>>>

>>> for neighbourhood plans in certain circumstances”. It also introduced the concept of ‘strategic’ policies and the need for these policies to be “distinguished clearly”. The consultation closed on 10th May. On 24th July the final version of the Framework was formally adopted. It contained a raft of subtle changes, not included in the original consultation document, that suggest a fundamental shift in the planning policy superstructure away from local in favour of strategic, even regional, plan policy making.

First and foremost, there is a new definition of “Non-Strategic policies” defined as “Policies contained in a neighbourhood plan, or those policies in a plan that are not strategic policies” while paragraph 18 refers to neighbourhood plans as a type of plan containing “'just non-strategic policies”. Paragraph 30 states that “Once a neighbourhood plan has been brought into force, the policies it contains take precedence over existing non-strategic policies in a local plan covering the neighbourhood area, where they are in conflict” - the implication of which is that neighbourhood plan policies will not have such automatic precedence over any strategic policy, however recently they were adopted.

It is clear from both of these changes that all neighbourhood plan policies are effectively relegated to the ‘second tier’ of a new policy hierarchy.

The new Framework has other surprises over its adoptedversion sleeve.

The definition of “Strategic Policies” remains unchanged as: “Policies and strategic site allocations which address strategic priorities in line with the requirements of Section 19 (1B-E) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004”. However the term ‘strategic plan’ is replaced with a reference to ‘strategic policies” in paragraph 11, 60, 73, 117, 135, 136, 138, and 156; and paragraphs 25-27, 65 and 67 replace references to 'plan making’ authorities with ‘strategic policy making authorities’.

Strategic policies are defined with reference to section 19 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, that in turn allows London Borough Councils, Mayoral development corporations, and local authorities within Combined Authority Areas to have strategic policies that are not part of their development plan documents.

It cannot be entirely coincidental that the Combined Authorities (Spatial Development Strategy) Regulations 2018 were laid before Parliament just before the new Framework was published and came into force just afterwards14. These regulations allow the mayoral combined authorities of Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region and the West of England to produce and amend spatial development strategies, mirroring the powers that the Mayor of London already has to produce and amend the London Plan.

www.planninginlondon.com

LEFT: Thomas Wyatt – “They flee from me that sometime did me seek” (1535)

“All is turned” Neither the principle nor the substance of most of these changes formed part of either consultation, but the Government’s position seems clear. The new Framework introduces a two-tier hierarchy of policies: strategic and non-strategic. Strategic policies may be contained in either a development plan or a spatial development strategy. The National Planning Policy Guidance still states that “A neighbourhood plan attains the same legal status as the Local Plan once it has been approved at a referendum.”15 but such plans are now in fact doomed to occupy a permanent state of permanent relegation in the second tier of this new planning policy hierarchy. n FOOTNOTES: 1 “They flee from me that sometime did me seek” (1535) Thomas Wyatt 2 HCWS 924 July 2018 Col 75WS 3 Cala Homes (South) Ltd, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 639 Cala Homes (South) Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government (Rev 1) [2011] EWHC 97 (Admin) Cala Homes (South) Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2010] EWHC 2866 (Admin) (10 November 2010) 4 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110117/debtext/110117-0001.htm#1101176000001 5 Friends of the Earth Press Release, Localism Bill fails vital green test, 13 December 2010 6 Simin Davoudi & Paul Cowie ‘Are English Neighbourhood forums democratically legitimate?’ Planning Theory and Practice Vol 1 No. 4 562 7 BPF Press Release, Property industry welcomes publication of Localism Bill, 13 December 2010 8 Kebbell Developments Ltd, R (on the application of) v Leeds City Council & Anor [2016] EWHC 2664 (Admin) 9 10 October 2016 Volume 615 column 85 10 10 October 2016 Volume 615 column 85 11 Westminster Hall Debate “Town and Village Plans” 30 January 2018 column 338 12 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/ government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/488276/151207_Consultation_document.pdf 13 ttps://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/ system/uploads/attachment_data/file/685288/NPPF_Consultation.pdf 14 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/827/contents/made 15 Paragraph: 006 Reference ID: 41-006-20170728

First published in the 2018 Magazine of the Cambridge University Land Society with kind consent: https://www.culandsoc.com

Issue 108 January-March 2019

52

Transport-Led Development in London and the South East Wednesday 16th January 2019 | Pinsent Masons, London Successfully delivering new transport-oriented development to unlock housing opportunities and promote regional growth

Highlights of attending: • Receive the latest insight from TfL on current plans and support for transport infrastructure delivery and discover the large-scale housing regeneration projects coming forward with insight from the Greater London Authority • Hear plans for current infrastructure improvements and planned investment • Take away the latest insight and hear new plans to improve access and connectivity to London airports • Explore how to tackle the most pressing challenges facing new development - including improving poor air quality, urban design and introducing improved digital connectivity to create the world’s smartest city • Understand how to consider local air quality plans, regulations and targets when planning for new projects and development • Network with transport and property executives with over 4+ hours of networking, including a drinks reception

SAVE 15% with code 365PIL T: E: W:

0207 067 1597 conference@thewaterfront.co.uk www.waterfrontconferencecompany.com

BOBBY MOORE ACADEMY | SUNAND PRASAD

Bobby Moore Academy The Bobby Moore Academy marks the completion of architect Penoyre & Prasad’s work for the David Ross Education Trust in the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park.

Sunand Prasad is a partner in architects Penoyre & Prasad and past president of the RIBA

54

Planning in London

The Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park continues to grow apace as one of Europe’s major regeneration projects. Alongside the burgeoning commercial, retail and cultural services, additional education and community facilities are required to serve the growing residential community. The recently completed Bobby Moore Academy, located in the heart of the Olympic Park, serves these needs through the provision of a new allthrough school.

The single institution is spread over three buildings – a primary school, secondary school and sports facilities - on three separate sites, each with its own site and planning constraints. The 6 Form Entry secondary school, a building of 9,450m2 spread over six floors, is located on the smallest secondary school site in London – a 3500m2 triangular shaped piece of land overlooking the City Mill River.

The 2 Form Entry primary school, designed with the capacity to expand to 3 Form Entry, hugs the River Lea Navigation Canal thus avoiding two large Thames Water pipes bisecting the site.

The smallest building – an articulated pavilion housing changing and storage facilities for the school’s all-weather pitch, playfully

Sunand Prasad writes: Back in the early days of the Building Schools for the Future programme we were commissioned by the Government’s education department to produce an Exemplar Design for full sized secondary schools on restricted inner-city sites of around a hectare. 15 years later the excitement and ambitions of the BSF programme are just a memory, and we hear more about its overstated failings. However there are still clients with deep belief in what good design can do for school communities: in this case the David Ross Education Trust and the London Legacy Development Corporation who via the Education & Skills Funding Agency contracted with Balfour Beatty to build a new school. The result is a through school on two sites – one primary and one secondary – 500 metres apart either side of the Olympic Stadium. Whereas our BSF Exemplar site was a hectare, the site of the secondary school illustrated here is only one acre, 0.4 Ha. The fantastic location, a river edge and the Olympics practice track alongside are a considerable compensation; design has to do the rest.

ALL PHOTOS © Dennis Gilbert LEFT: The entrance to the school BELOW: A central triple height atrium rises up the centre of the building forming the heart and focus of the school

reconciles conflicting demands of security and privacy, scale, and the planners’ high aspirations.

We worked closely with the London Legacy Development Corporation, as well as the David Ross Education Trust and Balfour Beatty, to ensure the designs maximised the potential of their unique sites and delivered genuinely inclusive facilities for the whole community. Together, the three buildings fit together to form a striking new assemblage that enhances the public realm and provides much needed educational and cultural infrastructure for the Olympic Park and its growing community.

Rafael Marks, Associate Partner at Penoyre & Prasad, explains: “The new school is a beacon of learning in the rapidly developing Olympic Park. It provides first-class educational spaces while capitalising on the world-class sports facilities around it.

The big challenge for the design was accommodating the large programme of spaces on such a tiny triangular site of less than 3900m2 while maximising external play space for the students.

Set in the pantheon of great Olympic architecture, it also had to punch above its architectural weight.

Given the site’s exposure on all sides, the building is conceived as an object, seen in the round and from afar. Its distinctive form and architectural expression serve to create a strong identity for the school while rooting it in context and creating a civic realm where none existed before.

The building is like a tardis. From a distance, and in comparison to the Olympic Stadium and the vastness of the Park, it appears small and dimunitive. On closer inspection, it has a more dominant and civic presence, commanding its site and the adjacent canal.

Once inside, the building reveals itself as a series of complex

www.planninginlondon.com

>>>

Issue 108 January-March 2019

55

BOBBY MOORE ACADEMY | SUNAND PRASAD

RIGHT & BELOW RIGHT: It is carefully positioned along the site’s northern boundary to maximise south-facing external play space

>>> and interrelated spaces. The use of double and triple height volumes, voids cut into the circulation spine, and extensive use of glazing creates ever changing experiences and continuous vertical and horizontal connections. Wherever you are in the school, one is oriented to the outside with extensive views across to BELOW: London and the Olympic Park. The building is rooted in the Large windows maximise Olympic Park while providing the students with wider horizons views to London to the to the city beyond.” south and the Olympic The secondary school is carefully positioned along the site’s Park to the north northern boundary to maximise south-facing external play

56

Planning in London

space. The main large spaces – assembly hall and sports hall – are raised to the first floor providing outdoor covered social space at ground level. A series of roof terraces step up the south elevation to provide additional external social space, commanding distant views over London and Canary Wharf.

The building was designed in extensive consultation with the David Ross Education Trust and the London Legacy Development Corporation, with complex educational and community needs. It has been organised as a truly inclusive facility to be used in evenings, weekends and holidays by the wider public.

Community-accessible facilities – dining, gathering, assembly hall, music and IT teaching and sports facilities, are located at ground and first floor, with inclusive changing facilities at both levels, with the school’s teaching spaces on the upper levels. An extra large lift accommodates parasports teams using the sports hall.

Packed into its compact form is a school of generous proportions, incorporating a web of large and small spaces, visually and physically connected through voids, screens and walkways. A central triple height atrium rises up the centre of the building forming the heart and focus of the school, and providing orientation along the corridor’s length. Above this sits a double height library, with a roof terrace above.

A triple height sports hall and double height assembly hall and drama studio are inserted as distinctive volumes at first floor, while a double height dance studio bookends the building at one end. Windows and screens maximise transparency and views

www.planninginlondon.com

through and into these spaces.

A generous internal ‘street’ forms the backbone of the school with voids punctuated on each level to connect the floors and provide light from skylights above. Coloured floors and signage provide identity and orientation. Arranged either side of this wide central spine are teaching spaces organised by faculty. Throughout the school, large windows maximise views to London to the south and the Olympic Park to the north while providing plenty of daylight and a sense of openness to the teaching spaces.

The majority of teaching spaces are naturally ventilated, utilising low energy heat recovery units fixed to the windows. The flatslab insitu frame provides thermal mass while allowing long-term adaptability, and LED lights and low-flush toilets reduce energy and water use. The heating system is linked into the Olympic Park-wide district heating network. The school is on course to receive BREEAM excellent certification. n

Issue 108 January-March 2019

57

FREIGHT SYSTEMS OF THE FUTURE | JOLYON DRURY

Freight systems of the future Innovative solutions for urban freight transport have a place in evolving urban planning says Jolyon Drury

Jolyon Drury is director of Surge Logistics Consultants

58

Planning in London

With the increasing development of e-commerce both in the B2B and B2C markets with customer expectations of same day deliveries the pattern of the supply chain is radically different from that served by UKâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s post War infrastructure and it is continuously evolving.

There is no longer â&#x20AC;&#x153;the right wayâ&#x20AC;? with distribution channels increasingly selected to match demand whilst minimising emissions and cost. The availability of infrastructure is key to making this evolution work.

To curb emissions, London including the City at both Mayorial and Assembly level have set a target of a reduction by 50% in the number of goods vehicles by 2030, a serious challenge when volumes and service expectations are still rising. To successfully implement this, the integrated design of infrastructure, spatial planning and the design of urban populated space must all play a part. A number of initiatives by Transport for London (TfL) over the last few years such as the Healthy Streets Programme have approached this.

There are still developer-led mixed use projects intent on maximising land use and return on capital (nothing wrong with that if properly designed) that are just logistically "too hot". The planning guide lines for urban goods vehicle access and parking are way out of date, neglecting the implications from the fragmentation and frequency of deliveries originating on-line from the destination address. Without a secure consolidated concierge service, manned or by secure lockers, delivery couriers having to navigate through a maze of multi-storey pavilions may be parked for more than half an hour, and there may be multiple delivery providers at a time with their vans queuing to inhibit both residential parking and pedestrian movement, itself a security risk. This can be avoided by building designers and

Click and collect concierge lockers

developers understanding the demands of the gig economy driven by the habits of the occupants.

One of the dichotomies is that inner-city land suitable for distribution is now at a premium as competing with housing and retail demand, and that the proliferation of supply chain service providers (such as FedEx, DHL, UPS, known as "integrators") competing for deliveries plays against the requirements to reduce emissions whilst increasing service levels.

The latest interim report on freight by the Infrastructure Commission highlights the conflict of land availability and cost and the necessity for the provision of inner city sorting and despatch centres. http://www.nic.org.uk.uploads Various research projects such as CITYLAB are addressing different paradigms for different city environments and markets but the key factors remain constant- delivering the right order to the right customer at the right time at the least cost and sustainably. http://www.citylab-project.eu/events/final_conf.pdf

Manned electric district delivery carts operated in pedestrian areas by the Dutch post in Amsterdam

Air freight plays a key role in perishable transport, part of the global supply chain direct to your door

Breaking bulk, even if loads are delivered ‘pre- picked’, ideally involves direct transfer into the final delivery medium- ‘cross docking’. But the reality of distance and land availability linked with the emissions saving ambition to reduce the number of delivery vehicles, autonomous or manned, implies collaborative re-aggregation where service providers share ‘big data’ relying on track and trace technologies to interchange items between themselves for certain zones of delivery without being penalised for anti-competitive behaviour.

Consignments for home delivery range from a single packet (formerly Post Office territory) to a crate of groceries. Conversely administrative business to save unproductive on-site storage at high rental cost has evolved purchasing techniques to draw down stock for just-in-time delivery rather than the former pallet quantities which are now held in suppliers’ warehouses. The Regent Street consolidation scheme demonstrated success with the proposed City of Westminster and City of London outer zone distribution villages set to follow it.

The paradigm of bulk delivery of unit loads of one type of goods from a manufacturer or wholesaler to a regional distribution centre to be stored until ready to be picked into individual replenishment orders for retail outlets who in turn will sell one or more items by direct order to customers is now generally redundant.

Developments in the global supply chain have for example resulted in ratio packs derived from intelligent forecasting of retail commodities being delivered pre-sorted, brand packaged and priced in deep sea ISO containers from Far East suppliers. The container is in itself a warehouse. Channel management, the selection of the speed and predictability of the mode of transport to match the market characteristics such as the use of air cargo for fashion launches in a business climate which risks only 15 days to counterfeit, though expensive is amply justified.

Similarly air cargo is used effectively for first to market fruit and vegetables- no longer considered “exotic”. London's Heathrow Airport is UK’s top port by cargo value with its own on-airport border inspection post to validate the cleanliness and quality for imported fresh food, hence the importance given to ground access infrastructure.

Government’s current ambition to modernise and smarten the trunk and major roads networks linked with the change in supply chain patterns as a likely result of Brexit provides a generational opportunity which may avert the compound effect of the continuing indigenous shortage of distribution labour and under-funded devolved planning legislation: offering the opportunity for new coordinated levels of automated order fulfilment and reverse logistics.

Developments of regional pallet interchanges for smaller logistics service providers as well as those of the major supply chain contractors might be located as tactical automated pallet

www.planninginlondon.com

“hotels” at key interchanges of the trunk and main road networks. This will provide nodes to attract intermodal facilities and the range of low emission smart technologies such as unit load transporters running in pipes, unmanned electric vehicles running on the public highway or drones flying in a hierarchy of closely controlled three dimensional airborne conduits.

Such developments will rely on a hierarchy of multi-modal logistics zones including secure truck parks and intermodal transfer sites reserved within the planning process adjacent to trunk, distributor and urban gateway interchanges. The infrastructure, a hierarchy of intelligent roads, heavy and light rail, and sub-surface freight tunnels need to be in place to facilitate these concentric rings of physical distribution operation. The Government Office for Science with DfT is actively researching technologies for low and zero emission freight distribution infrastructure under the Future Mobility programme.

The infrastructure challenge for Government remains the timely provision of the networks to facilitate these evolving technologies to service the variety of delivery options compliant with environmental town planning and societal aspirations.

Trends to follow Crowd shipping The most efficient way to service deliveries direct to homes and to businesses is under review: whether space saving secure click and collect lockers or some form of robot in basements serviced by a human on a zero emission device such as a cargo cycle or an automated electric van still requires replenishment of the loads from a consolidation centre somewhere within range.

The automation of vehicle loading and unloading and warehouse technologies such as automated pallet handling, order picking and packing into the final delivery medium such as a crate is now well proven as “the furniture of the workplace” with track and trace technologies making the interchange consolidation and later pre-delivery re-aggregation with customer alerts by text message robustly achievable.

"Crowd shipping" is a key potential development with the service providers (integrators) agreeing to share the whole van and cycle fleet to combine the reduction in emissions by dra- >>>

Issue 108 January-March 2019

59

FREIGHT SYSTEMS OF THE FUTURE | JOLYON DRURY

Intermodal transfer: takes trucks off the road, but currently not accommodated by UK loading gauge

>>> matically cutting vehicle numbers to maximise load volume and minimise delivery dwell times to raise productivity. Various "multi packer" optimisation packages are in development. There is some concern about future reliance on an unregulated public concierge network (volunteer delivery stock holders for a block of flats for example) in terms of security, but the advantages for the circular economy (order, delivery, retain or return) are clear to see.

RIGHT: Milton Keynes Delivery Robots by Starship Technologies

Further reading: CIVITAS Urban Freight Conference Planning for freight and logistics: practical solutions and longerterm policy. Ian Wainwright, Director, Future City Logistics. http://www.citylab-project.eu Jolyon Drury MA Dip Arch (Cantab) RIBA ACA FCILT MInstRE is Chairman, Public Policies Committee Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport (CILT), member of Freight and Logistics Policy Group CILT, member for CILT of Central London Freight Quality Partnership (CLFQP), Steering Group FTC2050, London Living lab Advisory Group (LLAG) CITYLAB programme (ended April 2018)

60

Planning in London

Autonomous delivery vehicles.

There is still caution over the rapid adoption of autonomous urban delivery technologies mixed with conventional traffic and pedestrian movement, but more supportive of the use of big data for cooperative consolidation to reduce urban delivery vehicles and to increase delivery efficiency. External delivery automation trends risk running a parallel stream as was experienced with automated guided vehicle systems in factories and warehouses thirty years ago. Many were installed as fashionable technology and discarded shortly after. The enduring systems were first by simulation and then real time physically tested against several operating scenarios to ensure flexibility and adaptability against a changing demand environment. A current trial with autonomous delivery vehicles is in hand in Milton Keynes, but this is not the pedestrian pavement density of London.

The FTC2050 partners research program running with the Universities of Westminster, Southampton and University of Lancaster seeking algorithms to rationalise inner city deliveries is a good example of current progress.

Manufacturing technology.

There are lessons to be learned still. For example 3D printing additive manufacture - not just of "solid" products but woven fabrics as well- offers the promise of sophisticated cottage industry bringing local employment to post-industrial com-

munities. But similar exercises even with less sophisticated communications more than thirty years ago highlighted the importance of an integrated supply chain for materials supply and product distribution in turn driving clustering of small scale manufacture to benefit from economies of scale.

Perhaps it is in the conversion of historic city centres back into productive employment environments beyond tourism where automated out of hours zero emission delivery and collection may flourish? n

CLIMATE CHANGE | ALEKSANDRA NJAGULJ

The financial risks of Climate change The time to act is now, even if the first attempt is not perfect urges Aleksandra Njagulj

Aleksandra Njagulj is head of global ESG at CBRE Global Investors

According to an unspoken, but seemingly a well-established rule, sustainability articles tend to begin with a proof-of-concept of sorts. Statistics are given on humankind's disastrous impacts on planetary resources and systems, sometimes combined with a brief history of sustainability going back to Club of Rome or even further to the Malthusian trap. I would like to believe that in 2018, there is no further need for this.

Overpopulation, climate change, biodiversity crisis and runaway air, sea and ground pollution are facts. The time for the debate is over, and the time to act is now.

Very much in this spirit, the finance ministers of the G20 wanted to find ways to for organisations to provide better information about climate change risks and opportunities, and the Financial Stability Board (FSB) has taken action. The FSB is tasked with ensuring that the global financial markets operate effectively and for the benefit of the society. Realising this mission is dependent on effectively addressing climate change risk, it formed the Task Force for Climate-related Financial Disclosure (TCFD) in 2015..

Generally speaking, climate change actions will fall either in the mitigation or adaptation category. The former seeks to minimise the effects of climate change; mostly by reducing the emissions of greenhouse gasses, such as carbon dioxide. Adaptation measures focus on dealing with the projected consequences of climate change which vary depending on the applied scenario. Both climate change mitigation and adaptation address climate change risks.

The TCFD recommendations have, since their publication in June 2017, seen a widening support from the institutional investors' community. This is of no surprise, as they are intended to enable organisations to provide decision-useful, granular and forward-looking information on the financial impacts of climate change. The decision in question can be on the part of the organisation itself, putting in place actions to protect itself or its products from the risks, or grasping the opportunities for a competitive advantage. However, it is also very likely to be an investment decision based on the assessment of climate-related impacts on the particular asset class. Assets seen as bearing too much risk can become un-investable, or stranded assets. These terms are currently mostly linked to fossil fuels, especially coal, but it would be naïve to consider this to be the extent of the possible climate change impact on asset investability.

S&P Global Ratings found that real estate has one of the lowest numbers of environmental and climate references in key credit factor articles, and that their impact is neither as direct nor high as in other industries, most notably oil and gas. The real estate sector has thus evaded ratings change on this basis, which is by no means to say the climate change risks for built environment are not real or significant, as explored below. S&P further identifies the TCFD-defined risks and opportunities in relation to their influence on rating changes, with physical impacts and policy and legal

www.planninginlondon.com

by far most impactful. These two risks are further examined in greater detail below.

Physical risks TCFD defines physical risks resulting from climate change as acute occurrences, typically extreme weather events such as floods, and longer-term chronic changes such as an increase in average temperature. For the built environment, these risks can result in a range of undesirable effects, from direct damage or increased maintenance and operational costs to asset obsolescence and even destruction.

Last year, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) has published their comprehensive UK Climate Change Risk Assessment Evidence Report, which includes an assessment of risks specific to the built environment.

They highlight the five most critical physical risks with overheating of buildings, compounded by the urban heat island effect, taking the prime position. Bearing in mind that the UK just endured one of the hottest summers on record, and already sees around 2,000 heat-related deaths each year, it is of little surprise that the CCC marks this risk as one requiring urgent action.

The scale of the problem is immense. Traditionally British architecture has not been designed to deal with high temperatures for prolonged periods of time. In fact, overheating is still not a primary concern. The newly constructed homes must comply with Building Regulations requiring high levels of airtightness, which perversely could even be exacerbating the problem. There are no policies at all dealing with the necessary adaptation of the existing buildings to chronically higher temperatures. The Institute for Public Policy Research recently published a report on fuel poverty, concluding that the UK government is already set to fail on its 2030 target to achieve the energy efficiency of Energy Performance Certificate rating (EPC) of C for such homes. There are some 2.5 million fuel-poor households in England alone.

Cooling all these homes with mechanical air-conditioning systems is likely to bring costs of £1 billion by 2050, and so is unlikely to be a practical or even possible solution.

The flood risk is, in comparison, a more understood and recognised problem. The CCC expects that the risk will increase to see the flood-related damages rise to £16 billion by 2080s form the current £1.3 billion. Long-term flood risk maps plotting effects from rivers, the sea, surface water and groundwater flooding, supplemented by more precise custom flood risk assessments have long guided the development of both prevention measures such as sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) and regulatory environment including planning permission conditions for developments. Despite the efforts, Flood Re, founded to subsidise insurance for at-risk homes warns of the possibility for some properties to be effectively uninsurable because of the high risk of flooding. The high cost of insurance is due to hit these households >>>

Issue 108 January-March 2019

61

CLIMATE CHANGE | ALEKSANDRA NJAGULJ

RIGHT: Plenary meeting of the Task Force in London

>>> particularly severely after Flood Re's scheduled wind-down in 2039. As ever, the risk of climate change effects will worst hit the poorest areas of the country, which can ill afford the costs.

Transition risks The second most impactful climate-related risk identified by S&P is the ever-evolving legal and regulatory environment, encompassing both climate change mitigation and adaptation. Targeting the former, the Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards (MEES) are the latest example of regulatory changes' impacts on real estate. It is now unlawful to enter a new lease on a commercial or residential property with an EPC rating lower than E, a factor which can and have strongly influenced investment decisions and has driven wide implementation of performance-improvement measures across the existing building stock.

It is to be expected that the regulation aimed at climate change mitigation will only become more stringent. This is necessary to achieve even the current Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) submitted by countries worldwide as part of the historic Paris Agreement, even as they cumulatively fall short of the proclaimed target to keep the planet’s average temperature within 2°C of pre-industrial levels. The UK has submitted its own NDCs building further on the leadership position it assumed with the Climate Change Act adopted in 2008.

Achieving these will require even more efforts, even as the UK has already cut carbon emissions by more than a third since 1990.

The European Parliament approved the revised Energy Performance of Buildings Directive in April this year requiring the member states to transpose the new elements into national law within 20 months. The measures include the use of information and communication technology (ICT) to improve the perfor-

62

Planning in London

mance of buildings, the introduction of smart readiness indicators as well as the rollout of e-mobility infrastructure. Fuel - or energy - poverty is equally a concern on the continent and the measures seek to combat it through an extensive long-term strategy for renovation of the existing building stock.

It is unclear how these rules will be translated into national regulations. The precedent of how the EPBD's first iteration has been rolled out across the Union shows an uneven transposition and even less consistent implementation. For the U.K., BREXIT adds another layer of uncertainty as the negotiations as they stand at the time of writing don't seem to offer any guidance on regulatory alignment. Even so, the standard for environmentally efficient buildings, be they new build or existing stock operation can be expected to continue to rise.

Finally, the legal risk related to climate change includes litigation brought by various claimants, including property owners and state bodies seeking redress for the failure of companies and organisations to mitigate or adapt to the effects of climate change or make an adequate disclosure. And with this, we come to a full circle.

An increasingly important framework for action Considering the significance of the financial risks presented by climate change and the wide adoption of TCFD by immense investors such as Blackrock and Citigroup, it is no surprise to see the almost immediate effects across the board. TCFD recommendations have already been embedded into widely used voluntary assessments including the CDP and Principles for Responsible Investment. All of the “Big Four” professional services companies have both endorsed the guidelines and offer services to organisations looking to adopt the framework. With this level of engagement and pressure, the TCFD recommendations are rapidly becoming an expectation for

corporations committed to sustainability.

The TCFD recommendations will rapidly move from the voluntary space to a regulatory requirement. The upcoming revision of Non-Financial Reporting Directive in 2019 will see the integration of TCFD recommendations, as already indicated by the European Commissions' Guidelines on disclosure of non-financial information published in 2017 and further in the Financing a Sustainable Economy report of the High-Level Expert Group on Sustainable Finance. The high-quality disclosure of climate-change related risks and opportunities will soon become a regulatory requirement itself and, hopefully, an integral part of every business' operation.

It is the time to act, and the TCFD recommendations give a very good starting point. The TCFD 2018 Status Report analyses the first steps undertaken by over 500 companies across financial and non-financial sectors, mapping their responses across the 11 recommended disclosures. Unsurprisingly, the scope and detail of relevant reporting is uneven, with financial implications and strategic resilience under varying climate scenarios usually missing. Of course, these are both the most difficult and the most novel aspects of TCFD’s recommendations.

The most prudent approach is thus staged – beginning with

the current status, and then steadily increasing granularity of climate change risk and opportunity assessments, and the relevant disclosures. TCFD envisages a five-year implementation pathway.

This could mean initially reporting solely on governance and some of the metrics. The next step would be identification of key climate related risks and opportunities using two degrees scenario, and then developing the financial implications, resilience strategy and risk mitigation. It is very likely some of risks or opportunities have already been identified and addressed. The aforementioned MEES legislation has been on the radar of the real estate landlords in the United Kingdom since 2013, and now quite mature risk management programmes have been implemented across the board.

For large companies, achieving the full compliance with TCFD recommendations will thus likely be a matter of identifying and addressing the gaps in already existing governance, processes and disclosure granularity. They are likely to find a more challenging situation downstream the supply chain, which is particularly relevant for indirect real-estate investors. They need to act to both disclose and require disclosure.

Again, the time to act is now, even if the first attempt is not perfect. n

Help Shape the Future of London !

If you want to help promote the debate on the ! capital’s future, join the London Society.

As a member you get priority booking and discounted rates for our walks, talks, debates and lectures. You will see inside important buildings (some not generally open to the public) on our tours. There will be opportunities to attend social events held in some of London’s most interesting locations.

And if you join now we'll send you a FREE copy of the London Society Journal (worth £7.50) and you can get a free ticket to hear Sir Terry Farrell give this year's Banister Fletcher lecture in November.

To join – and get your free Journal – visit

www.londonsociety.org.uk/join-here www.planninginlondon.com

Issue 108 January-March 2019

63

RP+BW+MH+DR+/CULS/LP&DF/ACA/NPF

Tuesday 19th March at Dentons, One Fleet Place London EC4M 7RA 1.30 FOR 2.00pm followed by drinks

Annual Planning Update Housing and new settlements: The CaMKoX Arc

In association with

Supported by

Media partner

Keynote: The Government’s agenda for planning

by Steve Quartermain (MHCLG Chief Planner) Followed at 6.00pm by Networking reception sponsored by Dentons BOOK AT: https://www.culandsoc.com or call 01638 507843 The full programme will be available early February

Graphic ©Inside Housing

BOOKS: THE KING’S CROSS STORY INTRODUCED BY THE AUTHOR PETER DARLEY

The King’s Cross Story: 200 Years of History in the Railway Lands Introduced by the author Peter Darley Published by The History Press, Stroud, 214pp, 230 images, £20

Camden Railway Heritage Trust was founded in 2007 in direct response to threats to the unique railway heritage in and around Camden Goods Station, but also to raise the profile of key historic railway features and promote opening them to the public. Now, after publication of Camden Goods Station through Time in 2014, the Trust has broadened its horizon to King’s Cross, reflected in publication of The King’s Cross Story.

Apart from the importance of its railway heritage and the speed with which the area is changing, there is much material concerning the King’s Cross Railway Lands that has not been tapped, most notably the drawings of Käthe Strenitz.

The history of the Railway Lands lends itself to a story-telling approach with 236 carefully selected images forming an integral part of the story. The book includes many maps to provide detail of the locations of facilities and their operation. While the history is thoroughly researched, the book expressly omits footnotes and references that would break the flow of the narrative.

The book starts with a Sunday stroll up Maiden Lane in the 1830s, where countryside was giving way to urban expansion, reflected in the tile kilns and dust heaps that served to supply the building industry and recycle waste.

With the arrival of the Great Northern Railway in 1850, King’s

Cross connected ‘the country’ to London, supporting the need for goods and transport of the ever-growing metropolis. Limited by statute from approaching any closer to the City than the New Road, the terminus located on the Regent’s Canal, promoting goods interchange between rail, road and canal networks and with the London docks.

The book’s focus is on the goods yard and the infrastructure that ensured the supply of coal and commodities to the metropolis, the hinterland to King’s Cross Station largely hidden from the public. It charts its growth during the 19th century, competition for trade, later consolidation, weakness between the wars, the high age of steam, and the subsequent decline under pressure from road transport.

The book examines the Railway Lands in terms of their social, cultural, political and economic history, taking a panoramic view and placing the area firmly in a broader London and national context. It is in sympathy with the way Simon Bradley expresses it in his book The Railways: ‘For those that have been initiated, a unique allure resides in the fabric and architecture of the railways, rather than in the trains themselves’.

There are chapters on the station, goods facilities, locomotive sheds, the role of horses, handling of coal and merchandise, the >>>

Peter Darley is founder of Camden Railway Heritage Trust

www.planninginlondon.com

Issue 108 January-March 2019

65

BOOKS: THE KING’S CROSS STORY INTRODUCED BY THE AUTHOR PETER DARLEY

>>>

>>> Belle Isle area, the LNER years, the people who worked there, the decline of railway use, and how the industrial heritage of the area has been lost or re-adapted for the 21st century.

Following the demise of steam, the stark industrial landscape, revealed after the opening of the Regent’s Canal towpath, inspired artists and photographers and was colonized by a variety of enterprises. Its potential for large-scale development became a battleground over which, for two decades, competing ideas for the future were fought.

The book concludes with a Sunday stroll up King’s Boulevard in the present day, where a world of glass and steel is rising above the rich historical features that continue to represent one of the most important industrial heritage complexes in the country. King’s Cross has long held a mirror to London, reflecting its industrial progress, its poverty and pollution, and its seamier side.

More recently the area has stopped trading goods and started trading ‘knowledge’. A large site, close to central London and major transport infrastructure with King’s Place, the British Library and Crick buildings on its doorstep, has key locational PREVIOUS PAGE: Gasholder Triplet from Goods Way, 1997 Angela Inglis (courtesy of Rob Inglis) RIGHT: Cover illustration by Käthe Strenitz to whom the book is dedicated

66

Planning in London

advantages. Enticing Central Saint Martins to the Granary was inspirational, placing creativity, energy and vitality at the heart of King’s Cross Central and attracting other major knowledge companies, including Google and Facebook.

We live in a fast-moving world, and few areas are moving faster than King’s Cross. For those who now live, work or pass through this unfolding panorama, or those interested in transport, railways or local history, the book provides the threads linking past and present, showing how features have evolved through time and space.

The combination of new and old may not please everyone, but the transformation of King’s Cross generally is a model as to how the industrial past should be respected and celebrated, notwithstanding that some heritage features could be better retained and explained. The transformation of the 1852 Granary complex can be commended, but not perhaps how the former Granary Basin is delineated.

At King’s Cross, our industrial heritage now appears secure and our future will, as a result, be greatly enriched. n

BOOKS: ‘MODERN LONDON’ BY LUKAS NOVOTNY REVIEWED BY DAVID HYDE-HARRISON

Modern London Author: Lukas Novotny; White Lion Publishing £14.99, hardback Reviewed by David HydeHarrison

David Hyde-Harrison is a retired architect whose work may be seen at davidhydeharrison.co.uk

“Modern London” is an illustrated guide to the buildings that have sprung up across London over the last hundred years. The author, Lukas Novotny, is primarily an illustrator, but he also writes in an engaging and breezy style.

Each chapter covers a decade, highlighting many iconic buildings. Sections begin with an overlapping montage of notable architecture, accompanying a brief précis of the social, economic and political scene that influenced the chosen edifices. There is also some overlap thematically, with a preponderance of huge factories in the 1920's and 1930's, softened by Egypt-inspired details stirred by Carter's unearthing of Tutankhamun’s tomb.

The text is a little skimpy, allocating two or three paragraphs to each building. There is plenty of cultural background, such as Odeon creating their cinemas as spectacular backdrops where audiences could lose themselves in reverie in the inter-war years and the wake of the Great Depression, when escapism was necessary. The cinemas' audacious designs served as a beacon.

However, seasoned practitioners will learn little new about architecture. Mr Novotny excels when he goes off at tangents, unearthing often alarming or salacious details, such as Jacob Epstein being forced by opprobrium to reduce a statue's appendage on the 55 Broadway building.

The sidebar depicts bite-sized cameos of modes of transportation or street furniture. Some are decidedly esoteric and obscure, technological dead-ends such as the Cierva C.30 helicopter-aeroplane hybrid. Others, like the Belisha beacons, are so ubiquitous that they have seemingly always existed.

Much of the enjoyment derives from the illustrations, Mr Novotny's forte.

Each building is presented straight on, pristine as the day it was unveiled, with a minimum of modelling or shading - rather too plainly for this reviewer. There are nice understated touches, like the icon shaped as a detonator indicating a building's demolition date. However, the modern styling smacks of Adobe Illustrator, whereas hand-drawn pictures might have better complimented the idiosyncratic prose.

“Modern Architecture” is being marketed as a coffee table edition, yet it measures 20cm by 25cm, and clocks in at a mere 144 pages, so it’s not likely to set the table's legs groaning. The book would benefit from being bigger, as occasionally the illustrations stretch across the page but are barely an inch high, so some of the subtleties are lost. The Police Box mark II, immortalised as Dr Who's Tardis, shares the same page as the Firestone Factory, and the doorway looks almost identical at the scale it’s printed.

Who is the booked aimed at? As mentioned, architecture buffs will find scant new information here, but may chuckle at the odd peripheral anecdote. The buildings are not listed with full addresses, just postcodes, and the index’s map contains no street names, so the book is more a prompt than a guide. The irreverent

www.planninginlondon.com

text and clean modern graphics might better serve as an introduction to London's evolving architecture to a younger reader, seeing it through fresh eyes. “Modern Architecture” is very reasonably priced so it will likely make its way as a gift and one could wile away a pleasurable postprandial hour or two in the author's company.

Investigating Mr Novotny's other output, he produces charming pop-up architectural cards of the same buildings featured in the book, and his sparse visual style is transformed in three dimensions. Perhaps the publisher has missed a trick by not embracing this playful gimmick and creating a much larger pop-up book that might inspire a delight in architecture for children, and maybe a childish delight in architects too. n

Issue 108 January-March 2019

67

BOOKS: ‘INTERPRETING THE NPPF’ INTRODUCED BY THE AUTHOR ALISTAIR MILLS

Interpreting the NPPF ‘Interpreting the NPPF: The new National Planning Policy Framework’ by Alistair Mills Bath Publishing £40 paperback Barrister Alistair Mills introduces his new book; Jessica Ferm reviews it on the next page

Alistair Mills is a barrister at Landmark Chambers, and External College Lecturer in Law at Magdalene College, Cambridge. He is the author of Interpreting the NPPF, and an Assistant Editor of the Encyclopedia of Planning Law and Practice

The National Planning Policy Framework is of enormous significance in the English planning system. This remains as true of the amended 2018 version of the NPPF as it was of the original. One major difference between the publication of the original NPPF and the amended version, is we now have the benefit of a substantial mass of case law regarding the interpretation of the NPPF: both in terms of specific aspects of national planning policy, but also generally how national planning policy should be interpreted.

Interpreting the NPPF: The New National Planning Policy Framework seeks to provide a guide to the new NPPF in the light of the case law interpreting the original NPPF. Published by Bath Publishing in October 2018, it aims to provide an accessible account of the new NPPF as released in July.

What is national planning policy? In R (West Berks DC and Reading BC) v SSCLG [2016] EWCA Civ 441, the Court of Appeal indicated that the source of the power to create national planning policy is the Royal Prerogative (the same type of power used to declare war and enter treaties). The Supreme Court, however, disagreed: Lord Carnwath JSC in Hopkins Homes Ltd v SSCLG [2017] UKSC 37 held that the power to make national planning policy arises from planning legislation, either expressly or impliedly. In West Berks, the Court of Appeal held that the Secretary of State cannot make national planning policy which conflicts with s.38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, or with s.70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. National planning policy which directed decision-makers to ignore development plans in their entirety, in every case, would therefore be unlawful. Likewise, the Court of Appeal considered that national planning policy cannot convert something into a material planning consideration when, as a matter of law, it is not material.

The original NPPF came out in March 2012, the same month as the decision of the Supreme Court in Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council [2012] UKSC 13, which determined that the interpretation of development plan policies was a matter of law. It was not enough for a decision-maker to reach a reasonable interpretation of policy: it had, according to the court, to be the correct interpretation. However, questions of the application of (correctlyinterpreted) policy remain a matter of planning judgment for the decision-maker. This was applied to the interpretation of the NPPF in Hunston Properties Ltd v SSCLG [2013] EWCA Civ 1610.

The correct interpretation of the NPPF is an important matter for a range of actors in the planning process. Officers drafting reports will be aware that if they recommend a grant of planning permission on the basis of a material error regarding the interpretation of the NPPF, the decision to grant may be quashed on judi-

www.planninginlondon.com

cial review. Applicants for planning permission, as well as objectors, will wish to marshal arguments regarding the interpretation of policy to best suit their position. Planning Inspectors may have competing arguments regarding the interpretation of policy raised before them, and will be aware that many court cases have arisen from an Inspector’s interpretation of the NPPF. What approach do the courts take to the interpretation of the NPPF? The courts stress that they are taking an objective approach to interpretation. As Sullivan LJ said in Redhill Aerodrome v SSCLG [2014] EWCA Civ 1386, the NPPF “means what it says, and not what the Secretary of State would like it to mean”. In Forest of Dean DC v SSCLG [2016] EWHC 421 (Admin), Coulson J poured cold water on a submission regarding what the Secretary of State’s intention was, instead finding: “the policy is a function of the NPPF itself, not what counsel tell me that the SSCLG intended it to say”. Notwithstanding these clear statements, in Good Energy Generation Ltd v SSCLG [2018] EWHC 1270 (Admin), Lang J admitted a witness statement from a senior official, finding it helpful in identifying the intended scope of the NPPF and the PPG. There are a number of general principles for interpreting the NPPF. The courts are clear that planning policy is not to be interpreted in an overly-legalistic way. Planning policy may pull in different directions. The views of specialist Planning Inspectors are entitled to respect. Planning policies are to be practical, and are directed towards planning professionals and the public. Planning policy is to be interpreted in its context, and planning policy is to be interpreted as a whole.

The NPPF contains terms and phrases which also feature in legislation. If these terms are defined in legislation, does the legislative definition apply to the meaning of the phrase in policy?

The cases have not all been in one direction on this question. The word “development” is frequently used in NPPF policy on the Green Belt. In Fordent Holdings Ltd v SSCLG [2013] EWHC 2844 (Admin), HHJ Pelling QC held that the word “development” in this context should be understood in the context of s.55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, in that it involves not only operational development but also material changes of use. By contrast, in Aston v SSCLG [2013] EWHC 1936 (Admin), Wyn Williams J declined to apply the definition of “major development” in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015 to national policy on Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and National Parks. Whether development within those areas constituted major development, was a matter of judgment for the decision-maker.

In Braintree DC v SSCLG [2018] EWCA Civ 610, the Court of >>>

Issue 108 January-March 2019

69

BOOKS: ‘INTERPRETING THE NPPF’ REVIEWED BY JESSICA FERM

Review by Dr Jessica Ferm, Lecturer in Planning and Urban Management at UCL

Dr Jessica Ferm is lecturer in Planning and Urban Management at UCL

70

Planning in London

Appeal declined to conclude whether the PPG was relevant to the interpretation of the NPPF, it being unnecessary for the determination of the case before them. However, Lindblom LJ did suggest his view, stating, “I doubt that it would be right to exclude the guidance in the PPG as a possible aid to understanding the policy or policies to which it corresponds in the NPPF”.

This decision was reached in relation to the original NPPF; it is an interesting question whether pre-July 2018 PPG can be used to interpret the new NPPF. The Government is already concerned about the interpretation of the new NPPF. The Technical Consultation on updates to national planning policy and guidance (October 2018) dealt in large part with the question of the standard methodology for the objectively assessed need for housing, in the face of new housing projection figures. However, the Technical Consultation also proposes “clarification” of the NPPF as it relates to the use of the standard methodology. According to the proposed changes, local planning authorities may depart from the stan-

dard methodology in exceptional cases only, and even then, only in the context of preparing strategic policies (and not in the context of individual applications). The Technical consultation also proposes amendment to the definition of “deliverable” in the Glossary, this having been insufficiently clear.

The fact that amendment is proposed so close to the publication of the new NPPF indicates that the current Secretary of State may be more open to amending the NPPF than his predecessors. In Redhill Aerodrome, the High Court reached a conclusion on the interpretation of Green Belt policy different to that for which the Secretary of State was contending. The Secretary of State did not publish an amendment to the NPPF to clarify or amend the policy, but instead appealed (successfully) to the Court of Appeal. It will be interesting to see whether the Secretary of State uses amendment to the NPPF as a response to court decisions on the question of interpretation which go against him. ncommunities whilst creating more successful places’ n

Review

planning policy, and an overview of some principles emerging from case law that guide the interpretation of the NPPF. The remainder of the book is structured in line with the new NPPF, so there are chapters on: sustainable development; principles of plan-making and decision-making (new chapters in the NPPF); residential development; business, economy, retail and town centres; communities, transport, effective use of land (also a new NPPF chapter) and design; the green belt; climate change; the natural and historic environments; and minerals.

For each policy area, the author explains any differences between the original and new NPPF, reviews the most important case law on the subject, and provides a summary of any relevant text in the accompanying Planning Policy Guidance.

The final chapter of the book sets out the procedure for challenging decisions that involve a misinterpretation of national planning policy.

From the outset, the content is detailed and technical: this is, essentially, a book for planning nerds. Mills applies the rigour of legalese to the book, but writes clearly and eloquently. The book does not seek to develop an argument as such (so, for example, there is no ‘conclusion’), but it serves as an invaluable resource for anyone seeking to understand the implications of the new NPPF for particular areas of policy interest. Planning practitioners in the public and private sectors, planning lawyers and students of planning (and planning law) are the most obvious audience. However, it could also prove valuable to communities and activists seeking to understand the complexities of planning policy and law, in order to challenge plans and decisions in their localities. It will also be an important resource for teaching and research for planning academics, such as myself. Although it seems ironic that, in striving for simplicity and brevity, the NPPF should necessitate a whole book to provide clarity on its meaning, Mills’ book is important reading for authors of both local and national policy, providing critical insight into the way words and phrases are interpreted in the courts. For all our benefit, we can only hope that the author’s project is far from concluded: I, for one, look forward to the next edition. n

The Government’s first National Planning Policy Framework, published in 2012, was designed to consolidate and simplify, into a single document, what had previously been contained in 24 planning policy guidance notes. It also aimed to give more power to local neighbourhoods, create a ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development in the planning system’ and place more onus on local authorities to consider development ‘viability’ in both plan- and decision-making. In its mission to be simple and brief, the NPPF has been criticised for lack of clarity and debates have raged in the six years since its first publication, particularly over what constitutes ‘sustainable development’, and what a ‘presumption in favour’ means.

For some time, the author of “Interpreting the NPPF”, Alistair Mills - a barrister specialising in planning, environment and public law - has been collecting decisions reached in the courts in relation to the NPPF in an online resource, A Digest of Decisions1. The publication of the revised NPPF in 2018 prompted the publication of this book, which seeks to interpret the new NPPF in light of the substantial judicial wisdom accumulated during the Digest years.

The result is a highly timely and comprehensive guide to understanding and interpreting the NPPF, which focuses on providing the reader with clarity on how wording and phrases used in the framework – such as ‘suitable’, ‘available’ or ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ - should be interpreted, given decisions reached in the most important legal cases. Given controversy on the latter, a whole 10 pages of the book (pp. 37-46) is dedicated to a review of decisions reached in the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court to reach an interpretation. As Mills points out (p.15, para 3.03): “Whilst the creation of policy is a matter for the policy-maker, how that policy should be interpreted – what it really means – is a matter of law”.

The first few chapters of the book open with a general introduction, a discussion of the nature and status of national

1

https://www.landmarkchambers.co.uk/resources/the-nppf-a-digest-of-deci-

sions/nppf-home/

BUY NOW: Interpreting the NPPF: The new National Planning Policy Framework The first book to explain in depth the revised NPPF & how it is likely to be interpreted in the courts.

Essential reading for anyone with involved in local planning and development including planners, developers and their legal advisers About the Author Alistair Mills is a member of Landmark Chambers, one of the country's leading sets of planning barristers. He works for a range of clients in the planning field: private developers, objectors, central and local government.

READER OFFER Save £10 on the print / digital edition bundle - normally £60 but £50 for Planning in London readers when you use the code PIL0119 at checkout

He also maintains a digest of decisions relating to the NPPF on the Landmark Chambers website.

1st edition published October 2018 Paperback, 210 pages Print: £40 + p&p Digital: £40 + VAT Print / digital bundle: £50 + VAT (when using code PIL0119 ISBN 978-1-9164315-2-2

How to order v visit bathpublishing.com/planning v call 01225 577810 www.planninginlondon.com

Issue 103 October-December 2017

71

IDEAS & ACTIONS TO CHANGE YOUR WORLD In a complex, changing world where global problems are felt locally, the systems used to plan, design, and build urban neighbourhoods are failing. The key to 昀xing broken patterns of urban development do not lie in grand plans or giant projects – rather, in the collective wisdom and energy of people harnessing the power of many small ideas and actions to make a big difference. This is ‘Massive Small’ change.

Making Massive Small Change showcases the deeply complex, adaptive systems our cities are, and offers an alternative to our current highly mechanistic model of urban development. It outlines and illustrates the ideas, tools, and tactics being used to help engaged citizens, civic leaders, and urban professionals to work together to build viable urban societies that we can all thrive in.

‘The principles and approaches in Making Massive Small Change reflect how we can empower people to once again participate in shaping our communities whilst creating more successful places.’

Ben Derbyshire, President of the Royal Institute of British Architects

Reader offer: Making Massive Small Change is available now, priced £25.

To order a copy for the special price of £20 inc p&p, call Grantham Book Services on 01206 255777, and quote MMSCPL. Offer ends 31st December

Discover more at chelseagreen.com

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REFERENCE GUIDE

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

>>>

www.planninginlondon.com

Issue 108 January-March 2019

73

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REFERENCE GUIDE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

74 86 Planning PlanningininLondon London

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tim Jackson AssistantDirectorofTransportation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VACANT Director for Commissioning (Planning & Regeneration)

London Borough of Southwark 160 Tooley Street London SE1 2QH

Translation Error.

020 7525 3559 www.southwark.gov.uk/planning Deirdra Armsby Head of Planning and Physical Regeneration deirdra.armsby@newham.gov.uk London Borough of Redbridge 128-142 High Road Ilford, London IG1 1DD 020 8554 5000 http://www.redbridge.gov.uk/Planning

Translation Error

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

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

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

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

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

London Borough of Sutton 24 Denmark Road, Carshalton, Surrey SM5 2JG 020 8770 5000 www.sutton.gov.uk/planning Niall Bolger Chief Executive niall.bolger@sutton.gov.uk 020 8770 5203 Ade Adebayo Executive Head Asset Management & Planning & Capital Delivery ade.adebayo@sutton.gov.uk 020 8770 6349 Eleanor Purser Executive Head of Economic Development Planning and Sustainability eleanor.purser@sutton.gov.uk

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

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

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

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

Simon Latham Executive Head Housing and Regeneration simon.latham@sutton.gov.uk 020 8770 6173 Mary Morrissey Strategic Director Environment, Housing and Regeneration mary.morrissey@sutton.gov.uk

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

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

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

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

Simon Williams Director of Community and Housing

David Barnes Head of Development and Enforcement

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

www.planninginlondon.com

Issue 108 January-March 2019

>>>

75

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REFERENCE GUIDE + SUBSCRIPTION FORM

Aman Dalvi OBE Corporate Director for Development & Renewal Aman.dalvi@towerhamlets.gov.uk Owen Whalley Service Head Planning and Building Control owen.whalley@towerhamlets.gov.uk 020 7364 5314 Paul Buckenham Development Manager 020 7364 2502

Adele Maher Strategic Planning Manager 020 7364 5375 Jackie Odunoye Head of Strategy, Regeneration & Sustainability, Development and Renewal jackie.odunoye@towerhamlets.gov.uk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

info@designforlondon.gov.uk

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

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

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

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

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

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

Department for Communities and Local Government 020 7944 4400

Would your firm like to sponsor this section of PiL? Please email editor@planninginlondon.com

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

Magazine of the Year (non-weekly) International Building Press Awards WINNER 2007 & finalist 2006 – 2012 & 2016-2018 London Councils, Addleshaw Goddard, pglaw, Howard Kennedy, L B Ealing, Brockton Capital, Hayes Davidson, Newzeye.com, Random House, DCLG, Transport for London, LSE Library, Deloitte Real Estate, London Councils, Circle 33 Housing, P&O Estates Ltd, Greenwich University, Steer Davies Gleave, City of Westminster, British Architectural Library, CBRE, Delancy, PDP London, Bellway Homes, Jestico & Whiles, London & Quadrant, Ecology Consultancy Ltd, Tesco Plc, Ramboll, Harvard College Library, London Wharf PLC, L B Islington, L B Greenwich, Sport England, Entec UK, Berkeley Group, Workspace Group, LB Bexley, RBK&C, RTPI, LB Bromley, PRP Architects, Durrants, British Land Company, L B Islington, CBE, GL Hearn, Holistic, White Young Green, Dentons, i-Document Solutions, Trowers & Hamlin, British Land, Montagu Evans, Precise Media, Lichfields, L B Merton, Speechly Bircham, TP Bennett, The London Society, Ebsco, Turley, Munkenbeck & Partners, Terence O'Rourke, Assael Architecture, Metropolitan Workshop, Urban Research, AMEC,GLA, LCR Stations and Property, Terence O'Rourke, Rolfe Judd Planning, Southbank University, Lurot Brand, Slaughter and May, Alliance Planning, Harvard College Library, Cluttons, DPP, Savills, Henley Business School, Grosvenor, Sainsbury's, Hamptons International, Barratt Homes, National Grid, Network Rail, Foster + Partners, PRP, Gorkana Group, London & Continental Railways, LCA, Cardiff University, Indigo ...

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

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

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

Planning in London

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

Keep taking your PiL!

76

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

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

London Borough of Waltham Forest Town Hall,

OTHER ORGANISATIONS

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

I would like to subscribe from:

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

last issue 107 October 2018 this issue 108 January 2019 next issue 109 April 2019

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

VISA

MASTERCARD

Card number: Expiry date:

security no:

Signature:

Tel:

Firm:

Up to 5 Email addresses:

Card billing address:

Invoice address if different:

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

SHAPING LONDON | SIR TERRY FARRELL/NEIL BENNETT

The high street has to evolve or die Evolve or die – an all too familiar phrase – and one that now needs to be applied to London’s High Streets says Neil Bennett

Against a background of accelerating change, Farrells work with the GLA on 21st Century High Streets, across London, and most recently with London Borough of Sutton on Sutton High Street, has demonstrated the pressing need to re-consider the role of our High Streets. At a time of significant and rapid change high streets need to adapt and change with the changing world about them. The internet, smart city technologies and autonomous vehicles have and will dramatically change the way we live. Similar to many high streets across London, the course of our work in Sutton saw Toys R Us, Maplin and PoundWorld close. There are further threats to one of the adjacent Asda and Sainsburys food stores, if their planned merger is achieved.

A smaller high street also faces competition from the larger shopping centres where new retail investment is tending to get concentrated. In Sutton’s case, this is both Kingston and Croydon, the latter with its forthcoming Westfield.

Today, with many physical attributes of retail becoming completely redundant, people are tending to go to a High Street environment to get a service-based or social experience they can’t get at home:• To see/touch/try/test products - to go to a “show”-room • To get human contact and advice • To be stimulated and entertained – theatre, E-sports and VR gaming • To buy something they can’t get elsewhere – something unique • For convenience shopping – to pick up something quickly, or

RIGHT: Moving forward the Masterplan

Neil Bennett is a partner with Farrells

www.planninginlondon.com

something ordered online The traditional High Street model is being re-imagined, with much more emphasis on inspiration, stimulation, and entertainment as part of a much wider experiential model, one in which eating, drinking, shopping and working are re-aligning.

All of this supports our long held view that a High Street should not be a shopping centre – a specialised mono-functional place for shopping only - but rather a multi-functional place of cultural, social and economic exchange – a place where you live, work, shop, eat and drink, and be social, civic and healthy.

A first consideration perhaps then is the underlying structure of the place.

For Sutton’s High Street – over 1 km long, and a street I have described as having ‘good bones’ – an initial step toward defining its future was an understanding of its underlying historic structure of three linked places, each with a still discernible character. A ‘Market town’, with a street market, and smaller shops, ‘Midtown’, with two large shopping centres, busily diversifying and introducing a mix of uses, and ‘Up-town’ around the station and the town’s food and drink hub. Through recognising the shape of the place, and then revealing and reinforcing the hidden drivers, London’s high streets are now beginning to re-shape and re-invent the identity and vitality of their high street.

Turning to achieving a mix of uses, and activity, a powerful driver is the need for housing, in Sutton’s case a very substantial increase in the number of people living in the town centre. The influx of new customers will be a welcome boost for retailers. A new and diverse population will underpin demand and bring 24/7 life to the High Street but we must be wary of is the accompanying pressure on values and rents, and the implied and real pressure on that valuable commodity - daylight and sunlight.

Work is another activity changing rapidly, with, in our analysis, the need for large corporate spaces in decline, and both demand for, and potential supply of smaller, flexible managed workspaces, ideally directly accessible and visible from the street, and from 6,000 to 25,000 sq. ft. (SEE workspace diagram overpage) Health and well-being spaces are also beginning to inform this rich mix between workspace, social and retail spaces.

The typical high street mix of retail and food and drink is also rapidly evolving with more and more real data and insight about how people use and access the high street – for Sutton our project partners CBRE employed their Calibrate tool to analyse the digital footprint of mobile phone users. (SEE overpage) This enabled the client and consultant team to visualise real flows on the high street, including the interaction between retail and food and beverage outlets and to accurately predict the impacts of change, such as adapting car park capacity. Calibrate also gave us an idea of the forward capacity of the high street and where natural footfalls are highest. Typically, we find in many high streets, from the east end of Oxford Street downwards in promi- >>>

Issue 108 January-March 2019

77

SHAPING LONDON | SIR TERRY FARRELL/NEIL BENNETT

RIGHT: What type of managed workspace is required?

>>> nence a shortage of mid-scale space, from 2500 to 10,000 sq. ft, largely caused by the small size of shops possible in the grain of older buildings.

Beneath the surface, many high streets are well loved by its local shop owners and customers, and they are behind a small, but discernible, trend toward mixing up retail and food and drink into a more personal, unique experience, activity first, built form last.

Directly linked to this better understanding of how a high street actually works, is the growing understanding that, in a three way fluid partnership between land owner, occupier and council, a high street needs active curation and management.

Another contention is that a High Street needs a frequent shot of adrenaline, to make it an interesting, relevant, entertaining, changing environment, where there is local identity and always something new. Our uniform and “anywheresville” high streets are quite frankly dull.

Learning from experience elsewhere, we think generic first steps are to:FAR RIGHT: • Understand place and points of difference.

What types of retail space • Respond quickly to changes in lifestyles and demographics are required in today’s • Experiment and be prepared to fail with new ideas, using market? temporary structures and empty spaces • Deliver small - scale upgrades and quick wins as a continuBELOW: ous process Retail Footfall Heatmap – • Make the high street a festival place – place of local celebraCBRE ‘Calibrate’ tool tion

• Establish an ‘Urban Room’ as a hub for continuous two way communication about the change and regeneration process, a place for change leaders to meet The aim is to provide a continuous spectrum of space and uses from one day to 5 year “pop up” events from food and drink, through to flexible workspaces. No more dividing lines of fixed tenancies and fixed uses.

The big picture is that to survive, London’s high streets need to become unique and offer what you cannot get elsewhere or on-line. Local authorities, like the LB Sutton, have great influence and often land that, with initiative, proper management and a curatorial approach can bring about the much needed change on our high streets High streets must adapt to regain their previous vitality, mix of uses, and by concentrating on the human experience. To do this, private and public initiators need to intervene and curate, to nurture and create different and unique high street experiences.

We need to allow for organic unplanned, unplannable activity to grow, to thrive or to fail, all for our high streets to become interesting places – tempting destination places to leave home for. n Required size retail units, Times Square

X X X X X

Provide more 1 500 to 2 500 sq ft units with some 10 000 sq ft retail units source CBRE Retail

0s

0 10 0

q ft

0 sq 2 50 0 1 50

t sq f

X

78

Planning in London

ft

✓ ✓ ✓

ADVICE

Planning and Advice advice We’re specialists in: • Commercial, residential and retail developments

The progressive, people-focussed transport consultancy The way the world moves. By Design. www.momentum-transport.com 020 7242 0228

town consultants tow n planning planning consul tants indi goplanning.com indigoplanning.com

Old O ld Bank Bank Chambers C ham bers London Road R oad Crowborough C row borough TN6 TN 6 2TT

• Cultural, heritage and educational schemes • Highways design and engineering • Sports venues and major events • Planning and modelling for stations, airports and interchanges • Public realm and urban design • Logistics, freight & operations planning • Transport master planning

Tel:!01892 01892 610408 610408 Telephone: Andy Stephens M rAndyMr Stevens andy@asplanning.co.uk andy@ asplanning.co.uk www.asplanning.co.uk w w w. asplanning.co.uk

Planning Services

Town Mill Mill Lane Dunmow Essex CM6 3SN

Tel: 01371 855855 Email: office@am-plan.com Web: www.am-plan.com

In our predominantly Green Belt area obtaining planning consent or change of use can be a challenge. Our team of Chartered Town Planners have years of experience, dealing with everything from a garden plot to a major housing development. They work closely with our land and new homes department and our agricultural and rural service department.

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

Preparing, submitting and negotiating planning

applications.

Advising on and submitting planning and enforcement appeals.

Representations at Development Plan reviews.

Advising on the planning potential for change of use of all buildings i.e. barn conversions etc.

Dealing with listed building consent.

Promoting residential and commercial development.

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

Advice on the development of strategic land.

Contact Planning: Call 01293 824354

Planning solved by Planning solved by design design Planning consultants and Pl anning consultants andarchitects architects www.bwcp.co.uk

w w w.bw cp.co.uk

www.planninginlondon.com

To advertise here for just £300 p.a.

To advertise here forjust£300 p.a. please email planninginlondon@mac.com please em ailplanninginlondon@ m ac.com

Issue102 108July-September January-March 2017 2019 Issue

79 83

Air Quality Forum 2019 Tuesday 26th February 2019 | Arup, London Practical measures to improve air quality in the UK through a collaborative approach of transport, planning and health initiatives Highlights of attending: • Hear the latest progress and plans on implementing clean air zones • Understand how to use an integrated, collaborative approach between planning, transport and health teams, to design and deliver air quality action plans • Explore the possible solutions and measures to improve air quality and how to introduce targeted responses • Learn more about available techniques to monitor air quality and understand the importance of accurate monitoring to test the effectiveness of initiatives • Receive the latest insight on the role of low emission vehicles in improving air quality and how to plan now to support increased use • Understand how planning and urban design can create greener cities

SAVE 15% with code 368PIL T: E: W:

0207 067 1597 conference@thewaterfront.co.uk www.waterfrontconferencecompany.com