LP&DF page 38 THE ESSENTIAL GUIDE TO DEVELOPMENT IN
Why has planning lost its appeal? Paul Finch page 54; Unblocking planning needs more action Leader page 5; Labour’s refreshed approach to planning Riette Oosthuizen page 21; The new NPPF David Rudlin page 17; Applications, decisions and permissions all down 6-9% page 34; Designing cities for women and girls Mei-Yee Man Oram page 64; Review of London’s strategic planning issues Stephen King, LP&DF page 39; Grey Belt Ian Barnett page 61
Please subscribe: page 74
Design Code for Staples Corner page 7
PIL 132 CONTENTS
5 LEADERS
Unblocking planning needs more action; Design codes offer desirable certainty… …while uncertainty continues in the Royal Docks
7 Design Code for Staples Corner | Lee Mallett
12 LEE MALLETT
Turning point for the City
13 PAUL FINCH
The challenges ahead for Labour
OPINIONS
14 Growth or good growth? | Michael Edwards, Matt Thompson and Jessica Ferm
17 The new NPPF | David Rudlin
18 The Government’s Industrial Strategy | Ian Fletcher
19 Affordable Housing | Marc Vlessing
20 The Thames – a low carbon future | Fiona Duffy
21 Labour’s refreshed approach to planning | Riette Oosthuizen
22 Artificial Intelligence | Peter Canavan
23 Housing development | Philip Allin
24 Social media in public consultation | Alice Salomonsson
25 BNG early triumphs and tribulations | Mark Topping
26 Review Mechanisms | Andrew Golland
30 BRIEFING
CLIPBOARD: New NPPF – what has changed? ITV South Bank studios redevelopment; House of Lords calls for Permitted Development review; Approved: the tallest tower in the City; 1 Undershaft: how it compares; Older People’s Housing Taskforce; London affordable residential starts fall 88%; Bold action called for to bolster SME housebuilding;
33 ¡PILLO!
Bishopsgate Goodsyard finally gets go-ahead; Nimbyism and procrastination; Two cheers and one boo for Labour; Crazy stat in the
UK Housing Review; A bridge too far; Planning permissions plummet
34 PLANNING PERFORMANCE
Applications, decisions and permissions all down 6-9 per cent from the same quarter a year earlier
Continues next page
38 LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM
39 Stephen King: Review of London’s strategic planning issues – the London Housing Crisis
44 Harry Quartermain: NPPF has failed to reduce car dependency
46 Sally Tagg: Making self-build mainstream
50 Riette Oosthuizen: Changes in planning from the new government
52 ANDREW ROGERS
A planning quiz for 2025
FEATURES
54 Why has planning lost its appeal? | Paul Finch
58 Revitalising high streets | Anna Iceton and Rebecca Chaplin
61 Grey Belt | Ian Barnett
64 Designing cities for women and girls | Mei-Yee Man Oram
BOOKS
67 Building Southwark by Kenneth Powell
71 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REFERENCE GUIDE
74 SUBSCRIPTION ORDER FORM
75 SHAPING THE WORLD London office Crane Survey by Deloitte
The LP&DF was formed in 1980 following an all-party inquiry into the development control system. It selects topics to debate at its quarterly meetings and these views are reported to constituent bodies and published in Planning in London.
It is a sounding board for the development of planning policy in the capital, used by both the public and private sectors.
Agendas and minutes are at www.planninginlondon.com
To attend please email the Hon. Secretary
Publishing Editors:
Brian Waters, Paul Finch and Lee Mallett editor@planninginlondon.com, planninginlondon@mac.com
Editorial, subscriptions and advertising: Tel: 07957871477
The LPDF is administered by: Brian.Whiteley@planningaid.rtpi.org.uk & Riette Oosthuizen riette.oosthuizen@hta.co.uk & James Mitchell : jm@axiomarchitects.co.uk
Chairman: Brian Waters MA DipArch (Cantab) DipTP RIBA MRTPI ACArch ppACA FRSA Principal: The Boisot Waters Cohen Partnership brianwaters1@mac.com
Vice-Chairmen: Riette Oosthuizen HTA Design: riette.oosthuizen@hta.co.uk and Brian Whiteley Brian.Whiteley@planningaid.rtpi.org.uk
Member bodies Association of Consultant Architects Planning Officers’ Society/Association of London Borough Planning Officers
Revitalising high streets Anna Iceton and Rebecca Chaplin page 58
Building Southwark by Kenneth Powell page 67
Available only on subscription: £99 pa
Provides a licence for five copies by email See subscription form or buy online at www.planninginlondon.com.
Planning in London is published quarterly in association with The London Planning & Development Forum by Land Research Unit Ltd, Studio Petersham, Gorshott, 181 Petersham Road TW10 7AW
London Councils British Property Federation Design Council CABE City of London Law Society Confederation for British Industry DLUHC Design for London/ Urban Design London Historic England Environment Agency Greater London Authority Home Builders Federation Landscape Architecture SE London Chambers of Commerce & Industry
London Forum of Amenity Societies London Housing Federation National Planning Forum ICE, RIBA, RICS, RTPI, UDAL, TCPA
Contributors write in a personal capacity. Their views are not necessarily those of The London Development & Planning Forum or of their organisations.
Correspondence and contributions are invited for consideration. The editors reserve the right to edit material and letters supplied.
Made on a Mac
Transport for London
London University (The Bartlett, UCL) University of Westminster Affiliated members: Planning Aid for London London Metropolitan University
THE LP&DF IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE LONDON SOCIETY
Unblocking planning needs more action
* in the
EDITORS’ NOTE
The government published the planning performance data a month later than usual. For this reason we have held this issue by a few days to be able to incorporate them (on page 34)
Planning in London has been published and edited by Brian Waters, Lee Mallett and Paul Finch since 1992
The welcome ambition of the new government to streamline planning is not unprecedented but previous efforts have had the reverse effect (see David Rudlin on the Raynsford Report, page 17).
The changes being introduced on housing targets and planning committees may help, but in the short term the promised updated National Planning Policy Guidance needs to do some heavy lifting.
First, it needs to emphasise that planning policy and development control are about the management of change and to recognise explicitly that most development involves change rather than conservation or preservation of the status quo.
This applies to design as well as infrastructure. In 2008 Michael Manser put it this way: "An accurate reproduction of a medieval, eighteenth Century, Victorian or Edwardian style, is a choice, as is Modern. Each has characteristic geometry and materials which define the period in which it was built. Some of the most admired historical environments derived much of their success by the accretion of contrasting designs.”
In 2009 John Howell QC sitting as a deputy High Court judge* said: ”The development plan and other planning policies provide guidance on how to determine planning applications on their merits. They are not devices for depriving material planning considerations of relevance or blinkers to impede a decision maker taking an informed view of the planning merits.”
National Planning Policy Guidance needs to enforce key aspects of the new NPPF including the following:
201: “The focus of planning policies and decisions should be on whether proposed development is an acceptable use of land, rather than the control of processes or emissions… Planning decisions should assume that these regimes will operate effectively.”
123: “Local planning authorities must determine applications on planning grounds only.” And a special message for the validation police:
45: “Local planning authorities should only request supporting information that is relevant, necessary and material to the application in question.
The Planning Inspectorate should be seen to be vigilant in enforcing these criteria and be prepared to award costs where authorities have gone beyond issues directly relating to the acceptable use of land.
This leaves us with the further conundrum created by the intrusion of tax collection into the planning system. What are now section 106 obligations used to be very strictly limited to works and costs directly related to the development itself. These now embrace far wider impacts.
The viability industry which has emerged at great cost in time and money from the attempt to tax house builders before they can even turn a profit urgently needs addressing.
It can be argued that the incorporation of subsidised social housing into larger developments does have a land use dimension and therefore needs some pre-determination, but as things work at the moment the developer is being taxed not out of profit but out of some illusionary calculation well ahead of achieving any profit or loss, so adding to risk.
This has led to today's log jam of housing developments with planning permissions unable to secure a housing association partner to make the development viable. Homes England has suggested setting up a clearing house which may be a good idea but demonstrates the depth of the problem.
In simple terms, local policy could require a reasonable proportion of subsidised housing in larger schemes and the subsidy should automatically become available from government funds. In so far as super taxation is justified this should be based on the actual profits made by the developer.
This would clear some roadblocks on the way to 1.5m new homes.
case of Council of the LB Bexley v SSCLG and Arslanboga
How about enabling boroughs to use receipts from CiL and S106 agreements to fund design coding and masterplanning exercises It is questionable whether the GLA should be allowed to continue its dubious stewardship of the Royal Docks
Design codes offer desirable certainty…
What’s the developers’ most frequent whinge, apart from being over-taxed? Yep - the absence of certainty in our planning system. ‘We know roughly what it costs to build, we know roughly what the value will be, but at the most crucial moments of maximum risk, we don’t know when or if we’ll be able to get planning, or how long it might take.’ A whinge, depending on your point of view, that has fallen for decades on deaf ears. The social and economic costs of uncertainty are all too real though, even if hardships for ‘greedy’ developers get treated with scorn.
It should be an essential tenet of the planning system to offer certainty, with some flexibility, as to what can and cannot be built. And to quickly update policy when markets or need change quickly after reasonable consideration (never mind producing completed plans on time…the rarity of which is a national scandal).
We last wrote about the topic of progress on Design Codes, now part of planning policy, following a presentation to last summer’s London Planning and Development Forum. And in particular in relation to LB Southwark’s emerging Design Code for the Old Kent Road Opportunity Area (see PiL 130). Good to see this is being produced in time for the arrival of the Bakerloo Line extension now looking more likely, political intransigency permitting.
Now another Design Code with accompanying parent masterplan, offers the sort of certainly that is needed and ‘must, could, should’ (key words in how the Code will operate) demonstrate the potential that such codes have for all London boroughs. Combined, the new Staples Corner Design Code and Masterplan should offer local people, businesses, developers, investors and all stakeholders very clear guidance, and therefore certainty about what will be given planning permission, or not.
But even a borough as large as Brent had to receive funding from MHCLG (or DHLUC as it was when the Design Code Pathfinder programme was launched) to be able to afford the Code’s production. How about enabling boroughs to use receipts from CiL and S106 agreements to fund such coding and masterplanning exercises in future? Because one thing is certain, better spatial planning, offering certainty is much more likely, rather than just more policy, to encourage investment and renewal.
And perhaps the most exciting thing about Brent’s plans for Staples Corner is that the borough is offering certainty that 2,200 new homes can be accommodated in this previously industrial area, at greater density - and co-located with employment and other uses.
This is planning that London needs, has needed for decades. Better late than never.
…while uncertainty continues in the Royal Docks
Meanwhile at the other end of town, in the Royal Docks, came news at the end of 2024 that Sadiq Khan’s ‘flagship’ London housing fund may need bailing out after ‘repeatedly’ missing repayments on a £300m state loan and failing to keep appropriate records about the debt, according to auditors.
Why the Royal Docks should remain conspicuously unregenerate when they overlook the most dramatic expanses of water in the UK that are not on the coast, remains something of a mystery. The last vessel to be loaded left on December 7th 1981, 43 years ago. Since then other private developers have built several thousand homes on other adjacent dockland sites. True, the unviable visions of several private developers (not least Sir Stuart Lipton’s), for the heart of the Royal Docks, have contributed to several decades of delay between them.
But the the GLA, through GLA Land and Property, owns 635 hectares in London, mainly in the Royals. That is equivalent to 23.5 Kings Crosses. There are something like 1750 homes at King’s Cross. Across the GLAP’s portfolio, to extrapolate, there is theoretical capacity for 41,000 homes.
It is questionable whether the GLA, which now resides in the Royal Docks, should be allowed to continue its dubious stewardship. At present this portfolio of land has to be London’s biggest target in terms of producing the homes Londoners need. n
Staples Corner future is…mixed!
Brent’s newly adopted Design Code for Staples Corner offers good guidance for a mixed-use regeneration of the area, writes Lee Mallett
Staples Corner, one of north west London’s landmark industrial areas at the junction of the North Circular, the M1 and Edgware Road, is now covered by a new Design Code SPD that will govern colocation of industrial and residential uses, sanctioned by a new masterplan for the area, offering certainty about future mixed-use development to existing landowners, businesses and developers.
The code, adopted on 17 November last year has been prepared by Brent Regeneration with architects RCKa, 5th Studio and others, and covers 43ha (the new King’s Cross is 27ha for comparison) and is one of the MHCLG Pathfinder Design Codes, and funded by MHCLG.
Dieter Kleiner, one of the founders of RCKa said: ‘It’s been a two-year process. We started work on the Design Code before the masterplan was in place, and the two processes influenced each other. It proved more efficient to work in that way.
‘A lot of local authorities just don’t have the budget for this kind of work. It should take much of the uncertainty out of the planning process for investors and developers, and businesses, providing detailed guidance on the levels of density and uses,
and we have worked on some more detailed site development briefs. It was essential to guide development as Brent don’t own a lot of the sites in the area.’
Achieving greater control
Much of the land is in private ownership so Brent wanted to use its planning powers to take greater control over a long-term vision for Staples Corner and offer clear guidance to developers to bolster confidence and encouraged future investment.
DHLUC’s (now MHCLG) Design Pathfinder Programme provided funding to Brent for the cre-
ation of the design code.
International lobby group, the Sortition Foundation, which campaigns to strengthen democracy and replace institutions like the UK House of Lords with ‘Citizen Assemblies’, helped architects RCKa select a representative team of community champions and set up a series of co-design workshops exploring themes such as home, public realm and work. Brent council places community action and engagement at the forefront of emerging policy.
An iterative process produced consensus around six co-produced guiding principles for the vision for Staples Corner ‘deeply rooted in the lived experiences of the local community’, according to RCKa.
‘We worked collaboratively to co-create a series of guiding principles under a strategic ambitions that will promote well-being while allowing the sites’ diverse businesses and communities to thrive.’
Co-locating residential amid industrial uses
The Code and Masterplan will allow the co-location of industrial uses with residential and the ambition is to encourage the delivery of 2,200 new homes in what has been primarily an industri-
ABOVE: Staples Corner aerial view looking over the North Circular towards the south-east LEFT: Jolly front cover of the new Design Code, adopted in November
al area.
Much of Staples Corner’s role in supporting logistics, distribution and other uses originates from its historic role as a railhead, and marshalling yards. It currently provides large format employment space with food and storage, building supplies and manufacturing predominating. Brent’s local plan designates it a growth area with a new masterplan led by 5th Studio, supported by RCKa and others, that provides a framework for development over the next 20 years.
This identifies how industrial densification and co-location can be achieve alongside improved public realm and infrastructure to take advantage of the new Brent Cross West station, and defines how c.2,200 new homes can be delivered withing the growth area boundaries.
Production of the Code and the Masterplan was contemporaneous, with each influencing the other. It fulfils the requirements of the National Model Design
Code, published in 2021, and provides a concise set of measurable, illustrated design requirements for new development, providing certainty about forthcoming development for communities, but also developers, investors, businesses.
They are intended to underpin decision making for Council Officers and through the clear language of ‘must’, ‘could’, ‘should’ provide more certainty about what may be acceptable when seeking planning permission. There remain fears, however, around whether such detailed guidance will prove too restrictive in design terms or inhibit flexibility when it comes to uses. The proof will be in the pudding. The market is likely to welcome the certainty. The code is a material consideration in the development of planning applications.
New opportunities are identified in the code, including landmark and gateway sites, signature and tall buildings potential, cycleways and buffer zones,
and public art
The Code has seven sections which set out the context and vision, how the coding plan and design codes relate to the masterplan, including three sections each dedicated to an area in the plan, with particular focuses on area wide coding, street focused coding and placed focused coding.
Must, could and should
Three key words establish the hierarchy of importance for the Code’s requirements. ‘Must’ is a mandatory code meaning an essential requirement that must be met. A ‘should’ is an advisory code representing a requirement it is strongly encouraged should be met. While ‘could’ represents ‘an opportunity for additional value to be added above beyond the mandatory and advisory requirements’. The hope is these key words should ensure the codes are ‘practical, legible and enforceable’.
New movement principles for Staples Corner
Staples Corner Design Code area, outlined in black, with types of existing buildings
The codes for each area within Staples Corner are then divided into Area, Street and Place codings with ‘must’, ‘should’ and ‘could’ guidance.
Chapter 2 on ‘Context’ covers area-wide characteristics such as public transport, the street network, walking and cycling, notable local assets and landmark buildings, like the Ox & Gate pub, the older Atlas Business Centre and the distinctive China House wholesale Chinese food emporium, part of the Wing Yip site fronting Edgware Road. Green and Blue infrastructure and flood risk areas are also included, as Staples Corner borders the River Brent and the Brent reservoir to the north.
The Vision, set out in Chapter 3, is rooted in an engagement exercise with RCKa and The Sortition Foundation recruiting a democratically selected group of 25 ‘Staples Corner Community Champions’, who participated in a series of workshops from December 2022 to February 2023.
Four key workshops looked at the themes of Home, Public Space, Work and a final Feedback Session.
The Guiding Principles for the masterplan and the design code, derived from these workshops included: • Destination Corner: Focused on Staples Corner as the key gateway site
New opportunities are identified in the code, including landmark and gateway sites, signature and tall buildings potential, cycleways and buffer zones, and public art
The main junction, Staples Cross, as it could be
• Harmony and Balance: To foster relationships between the adjacencies of the site and balancing constraints and opportunities
• New Connections: The opportunity to stitch new proposals into the historic site and create new connections beyond the site’s boundaries
• Love and Care: Cultivate a sense of ownership and caring and sense of community
• Celebrate the Existing: The area’s established industrial legacy and role, respond to existing communities and built fabric/assets, celebrating their role informing the character of Staples Corner
• Unlock Value: Proposals should unlock and increase value – economic, environmental and social to make ‘a place of opportunity’
Priorities driving the vision include place-shaping, the intensification of industry, particularly close the North Circular; and the delivery of 2,200 homes, collocated with industrial uses where suitable, further to the south within the code area.
The Code establishes six character areas, Staples Cross (1), The Broadway (2), Oxgate & Humber (3), Oxgate Circus )4) , Waterloo & Apsley (5) and Brentwater (6) (see diagram). Oxgate and Humber
Example of a ‘street code’ image for Brook Road. Rest spaces ‘should’ be provided at intervals of no more than 50m, while incidental play space ‘could’ be provided within buffer zones
The six character Areas. See text for key.
and Oxgate Circus are the areas identified for a greater mix of uses and higher density or landmark buildings. Brentwater might also offer sites for a data hub or other large box typologies.
Detailed area design codes are set out in chapters five (area codes), six (street codes) and seven (place codes). All the main routes are coded, for example with two examples shown below, with detailed dimensioned sections and illustrative axonometric sections.
Example from the ‘Place’ coding chapter: Ideas for ‘Oxgate Circus’, a new focus within the Staples Corner site
The Staples Corner Design Code marks a new era for local planning in London, and the UK. It should help establish much more certainty for developers, and for that reason is to be welcomed – as it has been by some local residents. “This project will be the result of a collective effort and I am confident it will have a positive impact on the area where I live,” said one resident.
It will be up to officers, planning committee members, design review panels, and applicant to ensure the quality of their proposals live up to the quality of urban design thinking and engagement which has produced the Design Code. n https://www.brent.gov.uk/business/regeneration/gro wth-areas/staples-corner/staples-corner-masterplan
ABOVE:
Example from the ‘Place’ coding chapter: Ideas for ‘Oxgate Circus’, a new focus within the Staples Corner site
Street Code for a reimagined North Circular. Street facing building lines ‘must’ be set back a minimum of 7.5m from the footway and forecourts ‘must’ be an integrated and accessible part of the public realm, car parking ‘must not’ be provided at the front of sites. Rest space ‘should’ be provided along the North Circular at intervals of ‘no more than’ 50m.
Turning point for the City MALLETT
The City of London has entered a new era. Lee Mallett reflects on changes in the Square Mile
The draft City Plan 2040 is at its Examination in Public. The Corporation abandoned plans late in 2024 to move Billingsgate and Smithfield fish and meat markets to Barking and has decided to close them, with traders to be compensated and presumably freed to fend for themselves.
Michael Cassidy, an ‘architect’ of today’s Square Mile and a founder of the City Architecture Forum (CAF) retired in December after 44 years as a leading City politician – one who conspicuously steered planning policy in the City to accommodate the consequences of Big Bang. This was partly achieved by a canny, radical, expedient of increasing plot ratios on areas of the Square Mile that could take extra density. It is the attitude of the City Corporation that the rest of London should take note of and realise that the City of London, the engine of the south-east’s economy, is embarked on a new era. The City Plan 2040 seeks to accommodate a changed post-Covid world, to make the Square Mile a ‘destination’ for visitors, and much more desirable for employees and therefore businesses. It is pursuing growth.
Part of the reason for this is that underneath the optimism lies a permafrost of existential concern and debate. Firstly in financial terms, the ability of the City’s principal public expression, the Stock Exchange, to compete effectively with global rivals. This is a problem for all stock markets when compared to Wall Street and its sustained bull market driven by tech and its dominance in the US economy. Perhaps a more protectionist US will prompt investors to revalue London’s and the European exchanges.
And secondly, expressed by what former Mayor of London Ken Livingstone rudely used to refer to as ‘the Heritage Taliban’, the fear that adding 1.2m sq m of office space in the next 16 years, the chief policy of the new City Plan, will damage the historic built environment. A debate expressed in the battle between Bevis Marks Synagogue and proposals for tall buildings nearby (1 Undershaft, approved in December, will be as tall as The Shard), and more general debate around newbuild versus re-use. Watch the Examination in Public for how it plays out.
We had a similar debate in the mid 1980s, over a different set of threats, for similar reasons. It's always been like this, as Michael Cassidy would testify. Hard fought-over turf with blows exchanged between old and new in an undersized ring (with plenty of under-
used corners). The City remains an engine of growth, as the refashioning of Broadgate and the vertical thrust of the Cluster testify. The new plan seeks to re-import more desirable urbane qualities neglected in Big Bang’s dash to globalisation, and essential attractors in the unending war for talent. New schemes pay for that. Recent criticism of proposals for Smithfield meat market, that the new Museum of London and whatever happens to the, er, rump of the market and its surrounds, will in some way be ‘sham urbanity’ are understandable. It is a shame the market is going (even 30 years after traders embarrassed the Corporation by packing not only meat but also their local ward).
Such criticism is however ‘nostalgie de la boue’ as the French put it. We are unlikely to persuade woolly mammoths to reinhabit northern England, no matter how much that might appeal to conservation, or indeed conservative, instincts. A ‘Saved’ Smithfield meat market would end up equally sham, unrealistically financially privileged, and markets generally do not thrive in aspic.
CAF events in the second half of the year exemplified the changes the City is experiencing. Members of the Forum visited Fletcher Priest’s refurbishment of One Exchange Place on the north east flank of Broadgate now underway for La Salle Investment and a Malaysian pension fund. This behemoth was one of SOM’s larger experiments in Post-Modernism when completed in the early 90s, contrasting with the robust modernism of Exchange House which bridges the rail tracks. New cladding, extra floor space, reduced atria, the introduction of a much more generous public link, with retail, penetrating through the scheme will create vital connections between Exchange Square and Bishopsgate, omitted from the original design, and vastly improve what this very large building has to offer, crucially avoiding redevelopment and the controversy of the redevelopment of M&S on Oxford Street. A fruitful combo’ of good architecture and more powerful urbanism.
A joint presentation from Fleet Street Quarter Business Improvement District and the City’s Built Environment team at Temple Bar later in the autumn proved popular and revealed how the area will be transformed. The Corporation however now has no less than five BIDs competing to transform their respective areas, with a sixth Riverside BID proposed.
This has caused some concerns to be raised by
Lee
Mallett is a founder editor/publisher of PiL, an urban regeneration consultant and a committee member of the City Architecture Forum
members at a meeting of the Corporation’s senior Policy and Resources Committee in October, not least around the Corporation’s capacity to deliver the public realm improvements the BIDs are promoting and the one-size-fits-all model for BID management which has rapidly evolved in the City and the capital. There are lessons here for all London Business Improvement Districts, of which there are now 70.
Meanwhile the Forum’s annual dinner in November was a sell-out. The Corporation’s New Built Environment director Katie Stewart confirmed she is a breath of fresh air, promising collaboration between public and private to achieve the City Plan’s aims. She paid tribute to Michael Cassidy who had announced his resignation on the same day. Her co-speaker, 20th Century Society Chair, Hugh Pearman, former architecture critic of the Sunday Times for 30 years, had a pragmatic proposal.
Why not treat City office buildings as the temporary structures they appear to be, as the planning system treats large industrial plants, and by-pass all that agonising about whether and how they should be redeveloped? They could be cheaper and more adventurous…but pragmatism to this extent seems unlikely. He also gave a sneak preview of of City buildings now sufficiently ancient (more than 30 years old) for the 20th Century Society to be receiving petitions for their listing. The Gothic PoMo cathedral Minster Court, for example.
What’s happening in the City holds lessons for all London boroughs. The key questions revolve around growth and improved public realm. To grow, to modernise, or to stagnate. London has gone backwards before, reaching a nadir in its population in the early 1980s. While the City forges a new future, other boroughs should consider more radical approaches to rejuvenating their centres, and their low density suburbs in particular to prevent London becoming ever more unpopular and unaffordable. n
The challenges ahead for Labour FINCH
A change in approach has been noted but government must right its mixed messaging on housebuilding
Labour’s election victory, with its huge majority bearing no relationship to the number of votes attracted, was given a cautious welcome by the property and construction sector. Presenting themselves as the party of house-building and proponents of a growth made a change from the shambles of the last lot, the first Conservative government which sadly thought kicking away the home-owning ladder (and kicking house-builders) was a formula for electoral success.
Claims that the incoming government would ‘drive a coach and horses’ through the planning system seemed over-egged, but it is undoubtedly the case that a development control mentality has overtaken planning authorities and indeed some amenity groups: the default attitude is that if it is new construction, then it is to be opposed. Labour said it was going to sort this out.
So as we near the year-end, how should we assess what the new government has done, as opposed to having said?
One very clear change of direction has come from Angela Rayner’s Housing, Communities and Local Government department: taking the word ‘beauty’ out of the National Planning Policy Framework, and scrapping the Office for Place and its chair, beauty-proponent Nicholas Boys Smith.
Greeted with some concern by architects interested in aesthetic debate, other observers, including your correspondent, always distrusted the ‘B’ word entering planning legislation – because it was never (and many people say never could be) satisfactorily defined. Eye of the beholder and all that.
As for the Office for Place, it never established itself as much more than a Tory Party plaything. There was also the slightly uncomfortable relationship with the Create Streets organization, founded by Boys Smith, which offered consultancy services to local authorities in respect of design codes promoted by the OfP. The founder was not involved, but Create Street was being run by his wife – not a good look for a government which fell afoul of conflict-of-interest issues early on in its life.
Removing ‘beauty’ as a planning criterion, in
favour of ‘good design’, is sensible, since the latter can not only be defined, but analysed and identified. This is a good example of how the planning ‘system’, rather than failing because it is fundamentally flawed, is in fact being overwhelmed by endless additional policies, some of which it is not equipped to administer.
An example would be carbon and climate calculations, which planners are not trained to assess. Surely a matter for building control; the same applies to fire design, which has been pushed into spatial planning when previously it has been a regulatory matter. There is little sign that this unhealthy trend, with nature and ecology policies now used routinely to challenge planning permissions via bizarre BNG requirements, is changing. Planning is still a huge risk for complex projects, and few will be rushing to try developing on green belt, however many jobs it may generate, following recent ministerial rulings upholding inspector objections.
If Rayner wanted to inject greater certainty into planning, she should force proponents of judicial reviews to pay the full court costs rather than relying on legal aid; more broadly, she should regard call-ins as a last resort rather than the displacement activity they became under Michael Gove. The decision on Marks & Spencer in Oxford Street suggests the government has got the message.
On the housebuilding front, the Government is sending out an awful lot of mixed messages. On the one hand we keep hearing it is all systems go, while on the other housebuilders continued to get a pasting over post-Grenfell activity and its funding. Meanwhile we wait for Whitehall to respond to recommendations in the Grenfell report, and at some point explain the odd relationship between the ‘independent’ Building Research Establishment and ministry civil servants responsible for Building Regulation guidance – a murky situation explored in the report, which has yet to be properly explained.
Ministers might also take the opportunity to review the Building Safety Act, introduced in haste and causing all sorts of problems – as mentioned,
Paul Finch is programme director of the World Festival of Architecture and joint publishing editor of Planning in London
making fire design part of spatial planning for instance, yet another example of policies being loaded inappropriately onto overburdened planners’ shoulders.
If planners are to be helped to speed up housing permissions (though it is a fantasy that so doing would necessarily result in a huge increase in production), they could consider appointing a standing panel of people who know what they are talking about, perhaps run out of Homes England. This could give swift responses to designs for significant housing proposals. The review, of the sort introduced to raised standards of school design not so long ago, would give proposals a green, amber or red light, with standard score sheets to create a level playing field for applicants.
Green would mean planning authorities could provide speedy approval safe in the knowledge that the designs were good. Amber would mean subject to some satisfactory revisions (and a second panel review), they would be good to go. Red would mean poor design which should be refused permission, and an implication that the client might think about employing a different design team.
The purpose of design reviews should be to speed planning up, not slow it down. This government might ponder that; beating up the only people who are providing housing at scale is never going to generate that fabled 1.5 million target. n
First published in Property Week, with kind consent.
Growth or good growth?
Michael Edwards, Matt Thompson and Jessica Ferm of the Bartlett School of Planning at UCL believe that for environmental, social and economic reasons London needs space to re-think its ‘growth’ trajectory
One of the appealing features, to many of us, of Sadiq Khan’s draft London Plan when it appeared in 2017 was the focus in chapter 1 on Good Growth – appealing because it acknowledged that some forms of growth are better than others and the plan should be choosy. There might even be bad growth. The ‘good growth’ policies aimed to embed these choices in the whole plan.
Later chapters were a let-down. Like earlier London Plans, what we got was the pursuit of growth treated as an axiom: growth of population and growth of employment. More chickens and more eggs, though the relationship between them was taboo. Each was projected separately and the imperative driving most of the Plan’s policies was to meet these projections and the targets derived from them. In the background it was economic growth which was the objective.
In the autumn of 2024 the GLA started work on preparing a London Growth Plan designed to be nested in with the new government’s single minded pursuit of economic growth. The prospectus for this Growth Plan reprises the perspective that London’s economy is the engine of the nation.
That ‘leveling up’ phrase is nowhere to be seen in national or GLA discourse.
What’s wrong with growth?
Growth is conventionally measured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP) which means adding up the market prices of all the traded outputs in the economy and adding estimates to cover nontraded outputs like public services. Another way of estimating it is by adding up wages, profits and rents. GDP is subject to various shortcomings:
1 Do we accept the market’s valuation of everything and of everyone’s work? In the depths of the pandemic we so often asserted that care workers, delivery staff and health workers were under-valued compared with bankers and lawyers.
2 GDP of course omits all the non-traded voluntary, reciprocal and family caring work done in the society.
3 Economic growth on the current basis has proved inseparable from growing emissions, climate and ecological breakdowns. We can’t go on like this.
4 Growth includes as positive contributions all the costs of containing and remediating the damage caused by our behaviours and practices: prisons and policing, decontamination, pollution control.
5 Asset value growth (notably house prices) feed in to the estimation of the housing services enjoyed by owner-occupiers and the estimated ‘output’ of the real estate occupations.
Alternative ways of measuring the wellbeing of society are being developed and we should be reflecting these in our planning.
A compelling spatial dimension
In London’s case there is a compelling spatial dimension to all this. The British economy has developed over recent decades into one where flows of income and wealth are dominated by financial and property-related mechanisms. It’s often referred to as a rentier economy. And financial and property assets are disproportionately owned by people in London and the wider South East, partly because the highest-paid jobs are here but also because the city and its region are such a powerful engine generating house price and land price escalation.
A given percentage increase in British house prices confers a benefit on a London house owner typically 5 or 10 times the benefit to an owner in Gateshead in absolute terms. These discrepancies between regions, and between owners and nonowners in London and everywhere, are socially divisive and an enormous problem. It drains talent from other regions and makes it ever harder to rebalance their economies.
Because London’s ‘growth’ as measured has been so strong it has been able to persuade governments that it is the ‘engine of the nation’ and thus to secure funds for the new infrastructure it needs to maintain its growth. This in turn further adds to
the value of commercial and residential property in our region. Thus, for environmental, social and economic reasons London needs space to re-think its ‘growth’ trajectory. After half a century of aiming to be the global financial capital it’s time to consider other possibilities.
Will London’s planning be different this time around? With the new prime minister constantly stressing that growth is his government’s overriding priority the signs are not encouraging. However there are alternative ways of thinking about growth which will repay debate and will stand us all in good stead as our various crises unfold.
Alternatives
Such alternatives are now proliferating and have recently been grouped together under the rubric of ‘post-growth’ or ‘beyond GDP’. They notably include community wealth building, the foundational economy, the circular economy, doughnut economics, and the wellbeing economy. Community wealth building, for instance, has
been tried and tested in the Preston model, through using the spending power of local anchor institutions (such as universities, hospitals and councils) to support production, employment and good working conditions for local, cooperative and social enterprises that put profits back into communities and ecological healing. These kinds of approaches point towards possible pathways beyond the growth logics of rentier capitalism or, even, capitalism itself.
Some cities are beginning to experiment with bringing all these models together into some kind of coherent policy programme. Barcelona and Amsterdam are amongst those at the forefront of this endeavour. London may have more skin in the game of financialised rentier capitalism than most other cities, but some London boroughs are also showing the way.
Barking & Dagenham and Islington, for instance, are currently experimenting with community wealth building and foundational economy programmes that seek to divert public funding and policy attention away from high-growth industries towards the ‘foundational’ sectors that support human flourishing and societal functioning, underpin everyday life, and employ the vast majority – even though they don’t measure up on GDP and productivity growth.
The big challenge for Londoners is how to shift the city’s heavily invested interests in finance and property towards such foundational approaches.n
FOOTNOTES
1 Savini, F (2024) Post-Growth, Degrowth, the Doughnut, and Circular Economy: A Short Guide for Policymakers’. Journal of City Climate Policy and Economy 2(2): https://doi.org/10.3138/jccpe-2023-0004
3 Thompson, M (2024) ‘Gathering the family of alternatives for post-neoliberal cities’. Structural Change of Property (SFB) blog post: https://sfb294eigentum.de/en/blog/gathering-the-family-ofalternatives-for-post-neoliberal-cities/ 4 https://www.islington.gov.uk/about-the-council/vision-and-priorities/our-priorities/communitywealth-building
ABOVE:
Here’s an artistic representation inspired by the theme of sustainable growth. It highlights a vibrant, eco-friendly cityscape focused on community and environmental harmony – DALL-E
London of the Future is a once-in-a-century publication from the London Society. The 昀rst edition was created in 1921 and proposed such ‘radical’ ideas as a green belt around London and a tunnel that would connect London to France.
100 years later, we asked a group of experts what could and should happen to London in the coming years and the responses have included natural solutions, different scales of economy, new forms of governance, better local food production, a radical rethink of education, improved housing provision and even dabbling in arti昀cial intelligence.
Contributors include: Anna Minton, Carolyn Steel, Claire Bennie, Dame Baroness Laurence, Gillian Darley, Grafton Architects, Hugh Pearma, Indy Johar, Jude Kelly, Kat Hanna, Mark Brearley, Mark Stevenson, Neal Shasore, Roma Agrawal, Sarah Ichioka, Smith Mordak, Tony Travers and Yasmin Jones-Henry.
The new NPPF does little to reform our planning system
The latest changes to the NPPF offer some welcome tweaks, but the system remains as complex and inconsistent as ever, leaving deeper issues unaddressed, writes David Rudlin
When the government announced that one of their main strategies to kick-start economic growth was to reform the planning system, I don’t think I was the only one who was a bit sceptical. Reforming the planning system is a big enough job in its own right, without staking the future of our economy on the outcome.
I have just been looking back at the column I wrote in 2019 (in BDOnline) on the publication of a report on the planning system by Nick Raynsford, former planning minister in the last Labour government. His report listed 16 major legislative and policy changes that had been made to the planning system in the previous 20 years.
All of these legislative and policy changes were designed to do exactly what the current government wants to achieve – to speed things up and to build more homes. As Raynsford said, all of them, without fail, saw the system become more complex, cumbersome and time-consuming. Do we think that the changes made by the current government are going to be any different?
The NPPF is, of course, only part of the picture; it relates to policy rather than legislation. It was first published in 2012, before which we had Planning Policy Guidance Notes (I’m sure you remember the great PPG3 on parking?). The idea was to simplify the 1,300 pages of policy into a short document (the current version is 83 pages). The NPPF remained unchanged for six years, but then the tinkering began, with updates in 2018, 2019, 2021, 2023, 2023 (again), and the one just published.
It says some very good things. The reintroduction of mandatory housing targets is something we have long called for, although the formula throws up some strange anomalies that I might return to later in the year.
However, my general impression reading the document is one of muddle. I have had a bit of experience of how these documents are edited. The first draft has a certain clarity, but then each department and interest group tweaks a word here, inserts a proviso there. Take, for example, design codes. Paragraph 133 says that all councils should prepare ‘design guides or codes’, and paragraph 138 says that the NMDC is the primary basis for these codes. All well
and good, although there will have been meetings about whether it was ‘should’ or ‘must’, and where did the word ‘guides’ come from?
But paragraph 134 says that the geographic coverage, level of detail and level of prescription should all be determined locally. So, we start off with a draft that says everyone should do a code following the same methodology covering the whole of their area – which would have been a radical change to our planning system – then, after the edits, we end up with: you should prepare a code, but it might be a guide, and it can cover only a small part of your area and doesn’t need to be prescriptive; indeed, it can be whatever you want it to be.
This is relevant to the announcement about officer powers to approve policy-compliant applications without reference to the planning committee. This is something that I have argued for, although it will be a brave planning officer who approves a scheme with thousands of objections, however policy-compliant it is.
But, as Nicholas Boys Smith points out, this only really works if you are sure that a scheme follows policy, which in a discretionary system you rarely are. Clear design codes would help. Indeed, there had been talk of schemes that follow a code having ‘deemed planning’ consent, but without clear codes none of this works.
The NPPF illustrates the tension that lies behind
(Raynsford’s 2019) report listed 16 major legislative and policy changes that had been made to the planning system in the previous 20 years. All of these legislative and policy changes were designed to do exactly what the current government wants to achieve – to speed things up and to build more homes. As Raynsford said, all of them, without fail, saw the system become more complex, cumbersome and time-consuming. Do we think that the changes made by the current government are going to be any different?
David Rudlin is director of Urban Design at BDP and visiting professor at Manchester School of Architecture
a lot of these debates. There are those that see planning as a defence against developers doing bad things: building on our countryside, squashing our biodiversity, spilling nutrients into our rivers, clogging our roads with cars, overburdening our services, and not building enough affordable homes. It is assumed that these developers are making huge profits and the planning system is there to stop them, or at least to make them pay.
On the other hand, there are those that see planning as ‘socialist’, ‘centralised’, ‘technocratic’, and the ‘enemy of enterprise’ (all quotes from the Raynsford Report). From this perspective, planning prevents economic growth, deprives people of homes, and delays infrastructure.
The divide is not entirely along party lines. Governments of all persuasions have tended to support the latter view and have sought to free up the system. Much of the general public, I suspect, and certainly the objectors to development and special interest groups, support the first contention.
The new NPPF tries to do a bit of both. First draft: yes, you can build on green (sorry, grey) belt, but you are going to make so much money that we will make you build 50% affordable homes, and we will cap the land value used in your viability test. Final draft: yes, you can still build on the grey belt, but actually you probably aren’t going to make enough money to build 50% affordable homes, and let’s quietly drop the land value cap.
The reaction in the press has been positive, although in the articles I have seen this is mostly reaction from the development industry, who feel their concerns have been addressed.
Addressing industry concerns will indeed get more homes built, but whether we achieve 1.5 million by the next election I’m not sure. What none of this does is fix the planning system, which remains a mess and a muddle n First published in Building Design, with kind consent
The Government’s industrial strategy
Ian Fletcher explains why the built environment, and policies that support it, are critical to the Government’s industrial strategy
The Industrial Strategy (Invest 2035: the UK's modern industrial strategy) is one of those rather eclectic consultation papers that governments publish, vague, but with several underlying issues that are important.
The production of an Industrial Strategy also raises the recurrent issue of whether governments should ‘pick winners’ or simply ensure that the fundamentals of our economy mean winners emerge naturally.
The Government opts to pick winners – eight sub-sectors in total - advanced manufacturing, clean energy, creative industries, defence, digital and technologies, financial services, life sciences, professional and business services. A recipe that is bound to please eight but disappoint others.
Planning gets 19 mentions in the Strategy, mainly in relation to growth, and policy changes to support it. I’d urge planners to read the Strategy. It goes to the fundamentals of what planning is about, in trying to resolve competing land uses, to the benefit of society overall.
The real estate and construction sectors are treat-
ed rather as atwix and between in the Strategy. There is recognition that some sectors are what are called ‘foundation’, fundamental to many other sub-sectors’ performances. The BPF’s response to the Strategy promotes the real estate sector, because all the eight identified subsectors will rely on access to excellent space if they are to be productive.-
Many of the eight sub-sectors are also important to London, and London’s strength is reliant on offering quality space. The capital has become an important location for life sciences, its range and quality of offices are world class at providing the space for successful financial services, and professional and business services.
The creative industries have always been important to inner London, but are increasingly important to the whole of London, with places like Waltham Forest providing film studio space. Within the professional and business services sector it is also of note that London is a global centre for real estate services. The capital is also home to a thriving Proptech sector.
Property therefore matters to the strategy, to productivity, and to London. Good workspaces, and excellent placemaking, lead to healthy more productive staff. Research has shown that:
• poor air quality consistently lowered worker performance by up to 10%, on measures such as typing speed and units of output•;
• short term sick leave was found to be 35% lower in offices ventilated by an outdoor air supply rate of 24 l/s compared to buildings with rates of 12 l/s•;
• there is a reduction in worker performance of 4% at cooler temperatures, and 6% at warmer ones•;
• office workers with windows received 173 percent more white light exposure during work hours, and slept an average of 46 minutes more per night;
• an up to 66% drop in performance for a ‘memory for prose’ task when participants were exposed to different types of background noise.
Our homes are also important to productivity, but housing does not feature in the Strategy, which is a pity. Arguably, a decent, affordable home, in the right location, is as fundamental to improving productivity as our workplaces.
Another notable omission from the Strategy is logistics. In a city the size of London, getting ‘stuff’
Ian Fletcher is Director of Policy (Real Estate) at the British Property Federation
efficiently from A to B makes the capital tick. Real estate prices do not support large storage facilities in the centre. Everything from medical supplies to the ingredients used in the West End’s top restaurants are moved from outer London to the centre. Having accessible logistics facilities is vital, and therefore protecting what is precious industrial land in London, and thinking carefully about how it is used.
The strategy asks about barriers to greater growth and productivity. We identify many – planning timescales, lack of viability, infrastructure deficiencies, regulatory uncertainty, taxation, and skills gaps. Ultimately, however, I can’t be too critical of the Strategy, nor the new Government. It needs time to set out its stall. There is a Bill expected soon to support greater devolution, and housing and infrastructure strategies are planned for the first half of 2025, as is the Comprehensive Spending Review. The results of the NPPF consultation will support some of this Strategy, and then the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. There will therefore be plenty of opportunities to turn the vague words of the Industrial Strategy into what could be meaningful and tangible actions. n
FOOTNOTES:
1 Loftness V. Hartkopf V. and Gurtekin B. (2003) “Linking Energy to Health and Productivity in the Built Environment: Evaluating the Cost-Benefits of High-Performance Building and Community Design for Sustainability, Health and Productivity,” USGBC Green Build Conference, 2003.
2 Milton DK. Glencross PM. and Walters MD. (2000) Risk of Sick Leave Associated with Outdoor Air Supply Rate, Humidification, and Occupant Complaints. Indoor Air 10, pp 212-221.
3 Lan L. Wargocki P. Wyon DP. Lian Z. (2011) Effects of thermal discomfort in an office on perceived air quality, SBS symptoms, physiological responses, and human performance. Indoor Air 21:5, pp 376-90
4 Chueng I. (2013) Impact of workplace daylight exposure on sleep, physical activity, and quality of life. American Academy of Sleep Medicine 36
5 Banbury SP. and Berry DC. (2005) Office noise and employee concentration: identifying causes of disruption and potential improvements. Ergonomics 48:1, pp 25-37
Here's how to build affordable housing
Lower targets for affordable housing can result in more actually being built, suggests Marc Vlessing
The sudden departure of both. senior leaders at Homes England is an opportunity to rethink the role of this essential government organisation in light of its ambitious commitment to deliver 1.5m new homes.
From 2018-2022 Homes England successfully supported the development of 152,700 new homes, unlocked land capable of delivering 380,000 homes and helped 228,996 households into home ownership.
Today the 2023 to 2028 strategic plan rightly sets out an expanded mission to make place-based working central to how it operates. However, it is clearly going to take a lot more than a change of senior leadership to deliver affordable and other housing on the scale required.
At present, neither Homes England nor our key metro mayors have the powers or resources to actually make that work.
Any new Homes England team needs to think even more ambitiously and create a radical plan to fundamentally overhaul how we deliver all housing. This conviction comes from my experience as founder and, until recently, chief executive of developer Pocket Living, where I have overseen delivery of more than1,500 affordable homes in London over the last 20 years. These have been sold at 20 per cent below market rate, mainly for essential workers. I believe that the first part of a new plan must recognise the requirement for a variety of strategies across England, depending on actual affordable housing need but also based upon the requirements of business as well as the public sector.
Looking across England, we should create a heat
map showing where the true demand for affordable housing lies: this should be focused on business growth as well as societal needs. Any growth-led affordable housing agenda has to be led by the Mayors of our combined authorities, in close collaboration with Homes England and with the required regional spatial development plans firmly in place.
Next, the plan needs to be pragmatic: Ken Livingstone's successes as Mayor of London came from an understanding of London as a national and international dynamo and "getting things done", rather than sticking to political dogma. A pragmatic approach would be to reduce the affordable housing demands within existing planning consents for a while. We should consider establishing an amnesty in relation to places where affordable home building has ground to a halt. This will certainly result in more being built.
And why not try setting the level of affordable housing at 25 per cent of London planning consents rather than 35 per cent or 50 per cent for a few years? Something, anything, is better than nothing in the capital right now.
A similarly pragmatic approach needs to be adapted for our big regional cities.
Outside London the problem is not necessarily a shortage of land but it is currently hard to make development viable in the face of high remediation costs and reluctant lenders. In these situations, the Treasury should allow Homes England to be a land buyer and a long-term equity investor in projects at below market rates, with the full buy-in of our metro mayors - particularly where the latter have pledged public land to a development proposal.
Marc Vlessing, is founder and chair of Pocket Homes
In addition to having a clearly defined regional strategy and pragmatic approaches to the hotspots within that, the third element of any effective plan should be a determination to support and grow the ecosystem of small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) developers and builders. In 1939 SMEs built 60 per cent of our housing annually; today they barely reach 12 per cent and the insolvency rate amongst them and SME contractors is at an all-time high. Why would anyone set up a development business today?
Planning is far too difficult; financing is costly and there is more chance than not that house prices will fall in the coming years while costs continue to rise. Homes England, therefore, needs to be at the forefront of providing a large injection of equity - to be repaid on completion of developments - to the SME developer and contractor world.
The final element of any plan to meet the government's housebuilding objectives should be a nationally co-ordinated drive to develop precisionbuilt modular housing, adding the capability to deliver up to 30,000 homes a year. If there was a nationally backed plan for modular housing it would definitely create the critical mass to take off.
The importance of meeting the government's housing target is a foundation for so much else that it needs to achieve.
In short it is mission critical. If it is to support this, Homes England should be wholly focused on housing delivery and pass on other activities that are better handled by central government like oversight of build-to-rent and building safety.
Only through the development of an overarching plan that is responsive to regional needs, pragmatic, focused on building capacity of SME developers and builders, and realising the potential of modular housing can Homes England hope to build The affordable housing we so badly need. n
First published in CityAM with kind consent
A Pocket Living scheme in Barnet
The Thames in shifting towards a low carbon future
Various groups, including pier owners, operators and the Port of London Authority are helping facilitate the transition towards low carbon energy on the River Thames, says Fiona Duffy
The River Thames has underpinned the economy of the UK and London for over 2,000 years. As a working river, the Thames as always been the UK’s gateway to world trade and a strategically important economic area. In 2017 alone, 12.83 million tonnes of cargo was transported along the river. London in particular relies on all commercial and tourist activities that take place on the River Thames.
However, the multifunctional benefits emanating from the Thames are not just limited to ones of a social and economic nature. The River’s role is becoming ever more important within the context of environmental sustainability. It presents itself as an increasingly important conduit for achieving the Government’s and Mayor of London’s aim of transitioning towards net-zero by 2050 and 2030 respectively.
The NPPF puts sustainable development at the heart of the plan, by stating that the planning system should support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate. It also advocates for forthcoming development, whether this be terrestrial or marine, to contribute to radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and support renewable and low carbon energy generation. Importantly, the NPPF notes that these principles are not just limited to large-scale infrastructure projects. It acknowledges that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to significantly cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
Various groups, including pier owners, operators and the Port of London Authority (PLA) are helping facilitate the transition towards low carbon energy on the River Thames. Most notably, we’re beginning to see the deployment of electric vessels, coupled with the installation of renewable shore power systems. By providing adequate green electrical power services, marine operators using the River Thames will be able to move away from burning diesel in generators (either onboard or temporary pier-wide generators) to zero emissions at source.
This initiative goes hand in hand with the Mayor’s aim’s to double the annual river patronage to 20 million by 2035, along with the equally ambitious target for over 4 million tonnes of freight to be carried by water by 2035 (London Passenger Pier Strategy, 2019). These aims are predicated on the need to use green river transport as a means to significantly reduce traffic congestion on London’s streets.
Nevertheless, the benefits associated with the renewable shore power systems are not just sustainability oriented, they will also generate economic benefits. For example, the introduction of this infrastructure will be key in supporting and facilitating the reinstatement of commercially viable operations on various piers.
The electrical infrastructure will enable businesses using the pier to shift away from using non-renewable sources of fuel such as diesel. In facilitating this shift, which is being encouraged at all administrative levels, it is important to ensure that the necessary
Fiona
electrical infrastructure is available along the Thames to avoid stifling the operations and viability of businesses that rely on river transport.
Nonetheless, the Thames Estuary 2050 Growth Commission (TEGC) identify a series of challenges which are hindering progress towards a low carbon future. Of most relevance are those relating to governance. The River Thames falls under the remit of numerous regional and local authorities, as well as statutory groups. This, in turn, makes it difficult to develop a singular vision to facilitating the shift towards the use of low carbon technologies.
Recognising this fragmentation, it is imperative that a coordinated approach to governance and strategic planning is adopted, in order to realise the sustainability-oriented golden thread running through national, regional and local policy. Such an approach requires the involvement of key organisations such as MHCLG, DEFRA and the GLA.
Boyer London is currently advising pier owners and operators on the redevelopment of their existing riverside assets, as well as on the installation of renewable shore power. n
Navigating Labour’s refreshed approach to planning
Riette Oosthuizen thinks there is much to be hopeful for in the new Government’s proclaimed energy to deliver more homes
The new Labour Government is set on delivering the largest wave of social and affordable housing in a generation. Historically, only about 50,000 affordable homes have been delivered annually (on average around 26% of total numbers), making the target of 300,000 homes per annum a daunting challenge. However, the revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), published mid December 2024, introduces bold and welcome changes, setting the tone for a new era in planning.
In recent years, housing delivery numbers have been woeful, making the 300,000 homes per year target seem overly optimistic. The planning system has often been blamed as the bottleneck. While it is undeniably central to increasing housing delivery, it is naive to think changes to the planning system alone will suffice. The entire housebuilding, funding, and delivery mechanism needs attention.
Nonetheless, more policy stability, innovation, and pressure to get planning approvals would definitely help. 2023 ended with the Conservative Government announcing changes to the NPPF that would have concentrated the majority of new housebuilding in urban uplift areas, having taken the pressure off elsewhere with the removal of individual housing targets.
This left little flexibility for unconventional sites, even with the promise of a 50% affordable housing target. Now, there’s a new opportunity.
It was with a sigh of relief that I read the changes to the NPPF which will influence how planning decisions are made at a crucial time. The new NPPF has come into effect immediately as regards to decision making.
As a planning consultant focused on housing delivery, I’ve seen large-scale projects come to a standstill over the last couple of years. But the proposed changes to the planning system are encouraging and should get things moving again.
The reintroduction of mandatory housing targets for local authorities is particularly promising.
Opening up the highly controversial topic of building on some green belt areas and the introduction of ‘grey belt’ is highly encouraging, especially with the incentive that 50% of housing
delivery on these sites needs to be affordable, albeit to be demonstrated through viability assessment, and over and above the local plan target. New golden rules introduce the need for delivering quality green spaces and nature within a short walk of homes. Also part of the rules is the delivery of homes where there is infrastructure to support growth (transport and otherwise). Large suburban extensions without necessary connectivity and social infrastructure are not sustainable, nor will they change behavioural patterns to reduce car use over the long term.
Identifying suitable plots of land for housing delivery is key and the more proactive local authorities can be, most likely in co-operation with partners, the more advantageous for speeding up housing delivery. While brownfield land is more sustainable, larger sites are often complex and expensive to develop. The new NPPF says the ‘default answer’ should be a ‘yes’ to brownfield land development, but it is hard to see how this would be the case with so many existing regulatory requirements around housing delivery. No
Dr Riette Oosthuizen is Planning Partner at HTA Design
complex development site meets all policy requirements.
The renewed focus is very much on large scale delivery, but small sites could make a huge contribution to housing delivery – particularly renewal of run down urban areas. It is positive that the Government is seeking ways to allocate more small sites in local plans, particularly as local authorities are currently struggling to deliver even 10% of their housing allocation on small sites. Historically, sites under 0.25 hectares were deemed too small, but they have huge potential. Therefore, more initiatives need to be introduced to allow communities to identify such sites for housing delivery.
Finally, the removal of the emphasis on “beauty” in planning policy as a measure for decision making is a blessing– it should never have been used in the first place. Our cities are dynamic, constantly evolving places. Driving change in a controlled manner is what local authorities should be doing, not stopping it. A refreshed emphasis on well-designed places, using design codes where it makes sense, is therefore very much welcomed.
Forthcoming changes to the planning committee system is also very encouraging. The current system is a huge weakness and risk factor within a very costly planning application process. Much time is spent coming to an agreement with local planning officers only for schemes to be turned down at committee.
There is much to be hopeful for in the new Government’s proclaimed energy to deliver more homes. While some of these changes require a significant shift in a culture of saying ‘no’, I can see some light at the end of the tunnel. n
First published in Property Week with kind consent
Can Artificial Intelligence help to hit housing targets?
Negotiating good planning outcomes will always require human intervention, says Peter Canavan
Last summer the government announced its intention to build 1.5 million homes over the course of the next Parliament. There is also a commitment to drive growth through structural changes to the planning system. But what changes are needed, and will the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) help or hinder the process?
Despite the ambitious housing targets, delays to existing plans remain. Research shows that seven English local planning authorities (LPAs) with draft plans at an advanced stage of preparation may be told to ‘go back to the drawing board’ because the gap between their proposed home targets and Labour’s revised housing need assessment is too great. At the same time, others are accelerating their plans to attempt to utilise ‘transitional arrangements’ and avoid housing need increases in the short term.
The planning system is, unfortunately, part of the problem. The current system works well in theory: nationally led policy on the broader issues (the NPPF), strategic planning on a local level to determine the allocation of development (local plans), local input on the siting of a development (neighbourhood planning), the masterplanning and detailed consideration of new communities (planning applications) and, as necessary, the appeal system, all provide a good structure for delivery.
However, issues arise when the system fails, mainly due to staffing shortages. The pressure on local authorities to prepare comprehensive local plans is immense. Local authorities have responsibility for everything from taxes to bin collection and are universally under-resourced.
Engagement with those who live and work in the area for which a strategic plan is being created is vital. This engagement must be regular, iterative, and relevant. The whole process of strategic planning must be a shared and transparent exercise, including the ‘why,’ the ‘where’ and the ‘how.’ Critically, the interrelationships between each of those three questions must also be explored, and also the relationships between the potentially competing priorities in the ‘planning balance’. A strategic planning engagement exercise must focus on delivering an output, rather than identifying how many people and organisations favour one ‘topic’ or ‘theme’ over another.
Increasing efficiency
So how can the planning process be made more efficient? In theory AI could greatly improve efficiency and decrease cost: generating and analysing housing or employment projections, reviewing and categorising site submissions, managing consultation and even auto-generating reports and analyses. But what more can be done?
The DLHUC’s PropTech engagement fund is already being used by 13 local authorities across the country to pilot the use of AI to manage public consultation on Local Plans. Authorities have adopted technology in several ways: for instance, Greater Cambridge analysed social media feedback that wasn’t captured on the consultation portal, and Southampton used 3D models to show how new proposals would look. AI can quickly review consultation responses and automatically categorise them, picking out key themes and identifying trends.
At the other end of the scale, could AI help to reviewing minor planning applications? Householder applications, Certificates of Lawfulness or conditions discharge are for the most part relatively simple but take up a great deal of officer time. This could in theory be automated by a computer program, with a planning professional only required to review the final recommendation. Similarly, simple pre-application enquiries for small scale development could be automated with a chat bot, so applicants would interact with their planning department in the same way they would with their bank or mobile phone provider.
Proceed with caution
However, there may be potential downsides. For example, although automation could aid public engagement by targeting more specific groups on a Local Plan or application consultation, a comput-
er’s perception of interests could lead to an artificial narrowing of options, or reinforcement of filter bubbles. In addition, AI has no intrinsic agency as it must be told what to do. Furthermore, it has no accountability, as its output must be evaluated by an accountable human. Care must be taken to ensure that consultation responses have been summarised correctly and the auto-generated parts of a report make sense. Where have the data used in models or reports come from? Are there inaccuracies? Is it replicating unintended biases? I do not believe planning in the UK should ever be a ‘tick-box’ exercise. Planning relies on the exercise of judgement and weighing up the planning balance. Considerations of design or the impact of a proposal on heritage assets is subjective. Applicants and officers need room for discussion on where trade-offs or improvements can be made, and where departures from planning policies can be justified. And of course, decisions must have some kind of democratic oversight to ensure public good is balanced against private interest.
There is no doubt that AI has enormous potential to transform the way that data-driven and administrative tasks are undertaken, which could ease workloads and allow more time for planning (as opposed to administration). However, negotiating good planning outcomes will always require human intervention to exercise nuance, common sense, creativity and critical judgement. n
Peter Canavan is a Partner with Carter Jonas
New opportunities for housing development around London
The urban uplift is out but affordable housing requirements are up, explains Philip Allin
Planning took centre stage at the opening of the Labour Party Conference, with Angela Rayner’s keynote speech reiterating the government’s aim to get 1.5m new homes built during the current Parliament.
And yet many in the planning and development sector are already questioning how realistic the government’s plans are. A recent report by The Housing Forum recognises that housing completions are due to slump to around 160,000 in 2024 and housing delivery will need to reach 450,000 in 2028/9 in order to achieve the 1.5m target, a figure not seen since 1968.
Housing delivery will be substantially impacted by changes in the planning system, notably a revised NPPF and changes to the urban uplift and to affordable housing requirements. So the question remains, can the policy changes deliver more affordable and social housing, and where?
Currently, the urban uplift places an expectation that new housing be accommodated within cities and urban centres. On the face of it, the proposed abolition of the 35% urban uplift will result in a fall in housing in cities, while surrounding areas such as the Home Counties would see significant increases. However, it is an incredibly crude requirement which does not take into account the ability or capacity for the requirement to be met. In London the Standard Method (the tool by which housing requirements are determined), sets targets at 99,000 homes per annum and would be reduced to c80,000 homes pa – but the reduction is significantly above actual recent delivery of just c37,000.
And despite the abolition of the urban uplift, a stronger emphasis on the delivery of affordable housing (particularly for social rent), will mean that although overall housing delivery targets will reduce for the biggest cities, there is a greater expectation that more affordable and housing will be delivered.
The proposed introduction of the ‘Grey Belt’ designation is likely to be the primary source of delivering this additional housing.
In the case of London, it is likely that the Grey Belt (and potential Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land release more generally) will enable the growth anticipated by the Government, particularly for new socially rented housing. There are hints that
this shift is already taking place, as the pledge of protecting the Green Belt was dropped from the current Mayor’s 2024 manifesto. Furthermore, some outer London authorities are already looking to the Green Belt to meet their spatial growth aspirations. There is inherent logic to this as Inspectors who have examined previous iterations of the London Plan have long identified a review of the Green Belt as key to accommodating potential development. Only recently Boyer won an appeal for 92 homes, of which 48 were affordable housing, on Green Belt
The removal of the urban uplift is unlikely to have a detrimental impact
land in Sarratt, Hertfordshire. The Inspector found that the scheme’s considerable benefits, its ability to address an acute housing need locally, outweighed the loss of Green Belt land.
One of the Government’s ‘Golden Rules’ for development in the Green Belt – a quid pro quo, if you like – to ensure that maximum public gain is obtained from new development in these areas – is that 50% of any new development is affordable housing. Much has been said about the viability
Philip Allin is a Director with Boyer (London)
implications of this but given values in and around London, it looks likely that London Green Belt may be the mostly likely location for this new housing.
To put this into context, 22% of Greater London (c35,000Ha) is designated as Green Belt and almost 10% (c16,000Ha) is designated as Metropolitan Open Land (a designation that is afforded the same level of protection as Green Belt). This is not spread evenly across London, with more than half of the total area of Green Belt found in just three outer London Boroughs (Bromley, Havering and Hillingdon). Not all of this land will meet the proposed definition of Grey Belt but nevertheless it is indicative of the potential scale and location of new development opportunities.
It is evident is that the stronger emphasis on housing delivery, particularly affordable, together with the introduction of the Grey Belt, will provide new opportunities for housing development around London. The removal of the urban uplift is unlikely to have a detrimental impact. n
Should social media be used in public consultation?
No one
method of consultation is better than another; many methods of communication are required, says Alice Salomonsson
Demands for more consultation
A recent YouGov poll commissioned by the Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment (IEMA) found 63 per cent of British adults believe there should be more public involvement in planning for new homes. This led IEMA to recommended that policymakers should create more meaningful opportunities to improve public participation in the planning system.
So as the new Labour government sets about ‘bulldozing the planning system’ to fulfil its pledge to build 1.5 million new homes, together with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure, is a step-change in public consultation necessary to achieve public support (and limit the NIMBYism that plagued the last government)? And if so, does a reinvigorated approach to public consultation require more of the same, or a 21st century approach which embraces social media and AI alongside more traditional means of communication?
Young are disenfranchised
There is no question that younger age groups are largely absent from consultation on planning issues. Decision-making on proposals for new developments is regularly dominated by a narrow demographic and traditional planning processes do not encourage the voices of the ‘silent majority’, which is largely made up of those under retirement age.
Stats on social media usage
Social media is almost certainly the most likely means of reaching this demographic. Research highlights that almost 80 per cent of the global population uses social media platforms and that this is growing at a rate of 3.2 per cent per annum. More specifically, more than nine in 10 working professionals aged 16 to 24 use social media, compared with fewer than two in three professionals between the ages of 55 and 64.
So while social media may have the power and the potential to reach younger audiences, is it a suitable form of communication for consultations on planning issues, which are invariably complex, nuanced and require considered responses?
Arguments in favour of social media in consultation
On the one hand, yes - social media allows people to take part in an online consultation when and where they want – at home, on the move, or while waiting for the bus. It can also greatly reduce the amount of time that is required to create a valuable response, with no need to travel, and may therefore be more attractive to people those who are ‘time-poor’, and may enable developers to unearth the support of the silent majority.
Online communication is accessible in both its language and in the varied ways in which information is presented. ‘Translations’ and accessible versions of documents are available through software already included in our phones and laptops, ensuring that these barriers to participation are removed. The usage of videos and CGI renderings will also allow for people to virtually experience the proposals as they will be built, making the engagement more interactive and fun.
Arguments against social media in consultation
However, posts on social media can be unpredictable and able to reach a wider audience quickly - opening up an unrestrained uncontrolled spread of information about the consultation. In the 2023 planning careers survey conducted by The Planner, 87 per cent of respondents said that they felt that social media regularly or occasionally contributed to misinformation about planning issues locally.
In my experience, I find that anti-development groups on Facebook have given rise to widespread misinformation about development proposals, creating a hostile environment which may discourage younger people from engaging.
Younger people today usually prefer to dedicate their attention in short, concentrated bursts, as seen with the short videos on Tik Tok. But I would question whether Tik Tok is a suitable medium for content relating to complex planning decisions.
What needs to be done to use social media effectively? Whether developers and planners intend it or not,
Salomonsson is a planner with Boyer
social media will be used in the planning sphere. We have to accept that it can be difficult to manage social media engagement but also find workarounds where possible. Consultations on social media should be monitored closely by the project team and dedicated websites and social media campaigns can be used to ensure that any misinformation and inaccuracy spread on the post can be corrected.
Furthermore, there is an opportunity for sectorspecific campaigns such as the RTPI’s ‘It Takes Planner and You’ to use social media to bridge the gap between planners and younger people; to educate them on the importance of engaging with the planning process and build trust through transparency, as I fear the main barrier to engagement may currently be the lack of understanding of the system.
It is difficult to say whether an increase in online consultation would help or hinder Labour’s housebuilding targets. However, it could ensure that a more diverse group of people would be allowed to participate in the process. Whilst the fear of NIMBYism and the spread of miscommunication may be reducing the desire in engaging with residents online, the focus should be on valuable engagement with as many people as possible, by both the private and public sectors.
The takeaway should be that no one method of consultation is better than another. It is likely that to reach the widest and most diverse audience, many methods of communication are required.
The strategy for public consultations should continue to evolve as online communication methods advance, alongside an increased education for younger people’s (or everyone’s) understanding of the planning process. n
Alice
Biodiversity Net Gain: early triumphs and tribulations
Biodiversity net gain became mandatory for major developments from 12 February last year and for small sites from 2 April. Mark Topping considers the impacts
More than six months on from the almost-universal application, we look at the triumphs and tribulations.
Landscape architecture, ecology and arboriculture have huge synergy and, when the disciplines work in close partnership, project outcomes can be exciting, creative and have huge benefit to the environment. As Lanpro a multi-disciplinary company in which ecologists and landscape consultants work alongside planners, we have prior experience of an environmental-led approach to development.
It goes without saying that BNG has had a significant impact on the development sector. BNG must now be considered at all stages of the planning process, from validation, through to assessment, discharge of conditions and reporting. Furthermore, the requirement to manage onsite BNG for 30 years has a significant impact on the management of schemes.
For the purposes of the regulations, BNG is measured using the biodiversity metric calculator which has been developed by Defra. Net gain is measured as the percentage change in the biodiversity value of pre and post-development habitats. The minimum 10% gain must be achieved separately for area habitats, hedgerows and watercourses, if these different categories of habitat occur within the planning boundary.
Although initiated by the previous government, the introduction of BNG is well timed in view of the new government’s revised policy on Green Belt release. The increased flexibility regarding Green Belt release could help implement BNG as it can unlock land for development within proximity of green space, which is often of a low quality in biodiversity terms. Thus the 'grey belt' – poor quality or brownfield sites within the greenbelt – provide an opportunity for development without a considerable cost
in BNG.
Most would view the policy as a net gain in many respects: over time, it will result in considerable enhancements to natural environments and will see greener, healthier developments with high value and high quality habitats.
It is important to remember that we are still in the early days of a very significant change in approach and that an element of confusion is inevitable. An example of this is that in some cases, developers who understand the process are looking carefully at their application boundaries in relation to the ‘red line’ (the application boundary) and the ‘blue line’ (their landholding which is not part of the development application). In doing so, they can ensure that they are assessing only core areas and are not over-prescribing BNG. They are also considering blue line ownership opportunities and landbanks for ‘off-site’ provision of BNG.
One issue that developers must be aware of is the careful refinement of the planning ‘red line’: ensuring that areas superfluous to the development but which fall with the developer’s ownership (the ‘blue line’) are excluded from the BNG calculations. This can result in elements such as watercourses (which can be particularly challenging from a BNG perspective and require specialist ecological input) being removed from the assessment.
Another current issue in proving biodiversity net gain is a lack of registered off-setting sites, although it is hoped that this is a short-term issue. I know of several councils which are developing habitat banks but are currently in the process of finalising Habitat Management and Monitoring Plans and S106s. In some LPAs, there currently are no registered sites for BNG. This leaves the options as onsite, in proximity subject to legal agreement, starting negotiations with landowners, or the Environment Bank option.
Mark Topping is director of Design at Lanpro
Clearly one measure of the success of BNG is the roll-out of well-designed sites which achieve a 10% biodiversity uplift without losing developable land. Essentially this comes down to appropriate design of BNG and preparing designs that are maintainable in perpetuity. Clear management plans should be created to ensure this, plans which cover the full 30year period to ensure landscape management is adaptable to evolving aspects of increased development in proximity, environmental changes in climate and disease.
The greatest concern relating to BNG is risk that some sites will become unviable for development. While we have not seen this specifically, we did have an urgent submission for a small site prior to the 2 April deadline which may have otherwise been unviable. However, I suspect there are many land-banked sites which will no longer come forward as a result –though potentially those land banks could come forward as BNG sites themselves.
Inevitably there are many practical issues in relation to the provision of BNG, but essentially the principle is welcomed by those striving to create popular and environmentally responsible developments. The sense among the planning and development industry is that when these issues are ironed out, the standard of new development (and the impact on the surrounding area) will improve exponentially. n
A question of viability: risky and fraught with frustration
We
are now seeing a whole new lot of Review Mechanisms in response to the difficult housing market, says Andrew Golland
The current difficult housing market circumstances are seeing an increased emphasis on overage or 'review mechanisms' (RMs).
This is for a number of reasons. Not least that developers and local planning authorities often cannot see their way clear of an ostensibly unviable scheme without recourse to reviewing the viability situation further into the scheme.
This has the potential effect of placating the concerns of local interest groups and Council members, the latter of whom are usually asking questions about why when 'we' have a plan, this particular scheme will not deliver (usually) Affordable Housing.
From the private sector angle, a signed Section 106 including a RM has the potential advantage of gaining a planning consent and kicking the viability issue further into the long grass.
At introduction, it should be stated that in the not too distant past it was believed that overage or 'Review Mechanisms' might not be legally enforceable. This was because they were regarded as having a unilateral nature whereby a developer could not force a local authority to pay money over if the scheme turned out to be less viable at review than it was at the baseline date (usually at planning consent). However, this objection, even if still mitigating against RMs appears to have gone away as we are now seeing a whole new lot of Section 106s including RMs.
The hospital pass
Unfortunately there are many 'hospital passes' going on in this field. This happens where one private sector operator (can be land owner or developer) signs up to a difficult or risky RM and then sells the land onto to another. The latter then, by law inherits the Section 106 with the RM and is then liable to produce the necessary review evidence at the designated point in time (often with say 75% of units sold).
Because of the difficulty in gaining planning consent generally, the terms of the RM are often not fully scrutinised despite the attentions of lawyers on all sides (whose knowledge often doesn’t straddle viability assessment).
And further, the purchaser of the signed Section 106 rarely in my experience tests the market to
assess likely liability and hence, is not in a position to get the seller to adjust price expectation.
So the whole area remains risky and fraught with frustration.
The basis of the RM
The RM can be very simple or it can be more complex. There are several dimensions to be considered.
First is the number of viability variables driving the calculations. The formula can be based simply for example, on GDV (gross development value), where any uplift in prices is shared between the parties. The overage can, and is typically, based on changes in the residual value of the scheme. So the formula allows for changes in both revenue as well as cost to be reflected in any payments further on down the line.
This is probably the fairest way of dealing with viability at review since it accounts for the fact that one key variable (e.g. values) can be declining whilst another (e.g. costs) is rising. For this reason it is likely that in most cases developers will want to sign up to something along these lines.
Second, is the basis of the review calculation. A simple approach takes key indices (e.g HM Land Registry House Prices and/or RICS BCIS costs) and indexes forward the figures in the baseline appraisal to the relevant review date. Other, more complex RMs require the developer to reveal the selling prices and actual (outturn) construction costs. This is clearly much more challenging and arguably, open to abuse (cost ‘overloading’). Some may therefore find an indexed approach more helpful. There is also the question here of tracking Affordable Housing revenue which can be difficult where there is a cascade mechanism also included within the Section 106 (allowing for a tenure substitution within the Affordable element of a scheme).
There are also some RMs which are hybrids, where some variables are indexed and others where outturn figures are required to be submitted.
Third is timing. Some RMs have simply one point in time at which viability is assessed. This is typically a ‘late review’, say when a goodly percentage of the scheme as been sold or constructed. There are clearly ways in which this point can be defined and agreed. Others have both ‘early stage’ as well as ‘late stage’ reviews. This allows some leverage for the local
Dr Andrew Golland specialises in the field of housing, planning and regeneration
authority to encourage the developer to get the scheme moving (as without some progress a payment could be due without any revenue having been realised). For example the early stage review could be waived where the building/s has been substantially implemented.
Formulaic approach
To calculate the amount payable at review, some kind of formula is required.
As above, this can really simple, for example: Contribution payable = GDV1 less GDV2
Where:
GDV1 = gross development value at baseline date (signing of Section 106 usually);
GDV2 = gross development value at sale of last unit.
If this produces a surplus, the RM may specify that the Council’s share is capped at 50% of the uplift. Other formulae may incentivise the developer by increasing the percentage retained as the surplus increases.
Other, more complex formulae are based on a residual approach. A typical example is:
X = Review Contribution
X = ((A + B – C) – (D + E - F) – P) * 0.6
Where:
A = Review Actual GDV (£)
B = Review Estimated GDV (£)
C = Application Stage GDV (£)
D = Review Actual Build Costs (£)
E = Review Estimated Build Costs (£)
F = Application Stage Build Costs
P = (A + B – C) * Y
Y = Target Return (%)
This approach basically captures the increase in residual value between two time points – Section
106 and review. It can be run twice where there is an early and late review.
There can be however be a problem with the drafting above since it does not take into account the land value benchmark (LVB). Where there is no agreed baseline appraisal (which often there isn’t) then a theoretical ‘surplus’ is chargeable where it is not viable.
In other words, residual value can have risen, but it still remains below the LVB; and the scheme remains incapable of delivering a contribution at review, despite the wording of the RM.
Therefore further provisions are needed, along the lines of: X (The Review Contribution) shall only be payable in the instance that the figure generated by the Formula: (A + B) – (D + E) – P (Residual Value at Review) is greater than the LVB (set out in the S106 as £££) which is the Land Value Benchmark for the site. Note here ‘P’ = (A + B) *Y (defined as above)
The scheme assessment at Review must prove viable with the residual value always exceeding the Land Value Benchmark.
Capping
Often the surplus is capped within the Section 106 RM. In the case where LVB is to be regarded, an additional cap is needed. As an example:
X (as previously) shall be capped by the lower (can be higher!) of:
The amount by which the Residual Value at Review (A + B) – (D + E) – P exceeds the Land Value Benchmark.
Or:
The figure produced by the Review Cap (as set out in the Section 106).
Example:
X = £500,000
Review Cap as specified in Section 106 = £300,000
Residual Value at Review cap = £1,000,000 less the Land Value Benchmark (at say £800,000) = £200,000.
In the example the Review Contribution would be capped to a maximum of £200,000 as the lower fig-
ure computed by considering both caps.
Note here also throughout - 0.6 represents the 60% of the surplus profit to be used by the Council for additional affordable housing, after the developer’s profit (P) has been deducted.
Review mechanisms – not just for Christmas
This is a challenging area. Hopefully now it has already been concluded that review mechanisms are not just for Christmas although they may provide a timely ‘bonus’ for some local planning authorities in some instances.
In principle, RMs are a good way of dealing with difficult sites where the Council’spolicy cannot be met in concomitant housing market circumstances. But both applicants and local planning authorities should take care to ensure that the rubricwithin a RM suits and can be properly implemented at the point of review.
There is helpful scope for RMs, but it is an area where considerable effort needs to be employed to deliver a successful and fair outcome. n
The next meeting of the London Planning & Development Forum
The Aim of the Society is to stimulate a wider concern for the beauty of the capital city, for the preservation of its charms and the careful consideration of its developments
WHY DO WE EXIST?
We believe that London's future must be shaped by contemporary culture as well as its rich and layered history
WHAT WE DO
Celebrate and enjoy the capital’s culture and architectural history. Debate how we plan a future that is beautiful, sustainable and fair
HOW WE DO IT
Engage Londoners with how the capital is designed and planned through tours, walks, talks and debates
FIND OUT MORE www.londonsociety.org.uk
CLIPBOARD
New NPPF – what has changed?
Delivered just in time for the festive season, the update to the NPPF landed – and promises to reshape housing delivery, reform Green Belt policy and promote collaboration between local authorities, all aimed at meeting the UK’s ambitious housing targets.
So, what has changed? Here are hgh Consulting key headlines of the new NPPF:
• Strategic Working The “Maintaining Effective Cooperation” chapter of the Framework has seen the introduction of a number of new paragraphs, making way for more strategic working between authorities.
• Housing Land Supply As promised by the draft, the allowance of a 4-year housing land supply for qualifying authorities has been removed. Instead, where a plan has been recently adopted but is looking to achieve only 80% or less of its housing need, a 6-year supply will be necessary. Thereby placing further incentive on adopting a robust new Local Plan that meets the local housing need.
• The Presumption Paragraph 11 d) ii. has been expanded to explain what the decision-taker should have regard to when assessing whether any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits – including directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, well-designed places and affordable housing provision.
• “Beauty” All reference to “beauty” has been removed and replaced with an emphasis on high quality design. This in effect will retain the element of subjectivity around this topic.
• The Buffer From 1st July 2026, a 20% housing supply buffer requirement (equivalent to a 6YHLS) will be applied where an LPA has a housing requirement adopted in the last five years. Authorities whose annual average housing requirement is 80% or less of the most up to date local housing need figure [calculated using the new standard method] will also be subject to the 20%.
• Green Belt The purpose of the Green Belt remains unchanged, but with greater emphasis on the acceptability of previously developed sites if a scheme “does not cause substantial harm to the openness of the “Green Belt”. In such cases, development is no longer seen as “inappropriate”.
• Grey Belt Now defined: “… land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed
ITV South Bank studios redevelopment
Campaign group Save Our Southbank (SOS) took housing secretary Angela Rayner to court seeking to overturn planning permission granted by her predecessor Michael Gove earlier last year after lengthy delays. Following a hearing in October, the High Court’s Justice Mould ruled in favour of the housing secretary’s approval on all four counts, overruling the objections.
“I have not been persuaded that any of the claimant’s grounds of legal challenge to that planning decision has been made out,” he said in his ruling.
SOS had claimed that Gove’s approval for the scheme “contained significant legal errors”, echoing the former MP’s landmark rejection of M&S’s Oxford Street redevelopment, a decision that was later quashed. The building was home to public service broadcaster ITV until 2018. The developers are Mitsubishi and CORE and architect Make.
land and/or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to any of the purposes (a) [restrict sprawl], (b) [merging of towns], and (d) [special character of historic towns]. “Grey belt” excludes land where the application of policies relating to the area or assets would provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development”. Whilst no reference to specific uses, e. golf courses or previously worked land, the “and/or” reference will no doubt provide some useful appeal fodder!
• The “Golden Rules” For major residential development in the Green Belt should meet the following: a) affordable housing at 50% or until policies are place or 15% above “the highest existing affordable housing requirement” which would otherwise apply, with a 50% cap, b) necessary improvements to local or national infrastructure and c) provision of new or improved green spaces that are accessible to the public. New paragraph 158 is clear: “a development which complies with the Golden Rules should be given significant weight in favour of the grant of permission”.
• Brownfield Land Para 125 c) includes new wording that provides a much stronger presumption in favour of approving development on brownfield land where “..substantial weight should be afforded to
using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs, proposals for which should be approved unless substantial harm would be caused”.
• Flood Risk Assessments A new exception explains that sequential tests should not be used where a site-specific FRA demonstrates no ‘built’ development (including access or escape routes) would be located in an area at risk of flooding from any source now and in the future. Further PPG meat to add to the bones of this exception are however warranted and will no doubt be played out at appeal.
• Local Plan preparation Policies in the new NPPF will apply from 12th March 2025, unless – insert multiple caveats here. Highlights include: before this date a Local Plan has been submitted for examination, or a Local Plan has reached Reg. 19 stage and its draft housing requirement meets at least 80% of its local housing need using the new standard method.
Beyond the NPPF
We also note the special delivery of:
1 The new standard method for calculating housing need for each authority have been published to make way for the 370k new homes nationally per year;
CLIPBOARD
2 Housing delivery test scores for 2023 are in! These results set out how each authority has performed against its housing need over the last 3 years;
3 The PPG has also seen updates on plan-making, viability, housing supply, housing and economic needs. But all eyes on January 2025 for the further release of more PPG updates on green belt reviews and grey belt…
4 Funding of £150 million towards new planning officers.
– Ellie Fowler, Associate, hgh Consulting House of Lords calls for
Permitted Development review
The government has been urged to review permitted development conversion of Class E buildings into residential as part of a report from the House of Lords into the future of UK high streets.
The report, ‘High streets: life beyond retail’ warns the expansion of permitted development rights in March 2024 risks damaging the vitality of high street to reduce local control of the design and development of high-streets.
It states: “The government should undertake a review of the policy to examine the impact it is having on high streets relative to the number and quality of homes delivered." It concludes that retail's dominance of high streets is "something of the past". Planning authorities, landlords and the government are urged to avoid a "monolithic approach" and embrace flexibility.
Older People’s Housing Taskforce
The Taskforce was chaired by Professor Julienne Meyer who, along with 18 sector experts, came together to investigate measures that can boost the volume, quality and range of housing choices for older people and age-friendly neighbourhoods for later living. The evidence was collated during the year-long investigation and the resultant findings and recommendations are now out.
Key findings from the report include:
• Our older population is growing and becoming more diverse. Over 65s are 18.6% of our population (up 2% points in ten years), with 8% born outside
Approved: the tallest tower in the City
Planning permission has been approved for 1 Undershaft, which will be the tallest skyscraper in the City of London. The City of London Corporation’s planning applications sub-committee has granted consent for the building which will offer approximately 154,000 sqm of commercial space at the centre of the Eastern City Cluster. The 74-storey (309.6m high) office tower will be between the Gherkin and the Leadenhall building. Designed by Eric Parry Architects for Aroland Holdings, it will feature Europe’s highest publicly accessible viewing gallery at the top of the building and an educational space curated by the London Museum. The building will be the tallest in the City and joint tallest in Western Europe at 309.6m above ordnance datum, matching the height of the Shard.
The City Corporation progresses towards its target of delivering a minimum of 1.2 million square metres of new office space by 2040 and this building will provide nearly 13 per cent of the City’s identified office space requirement, responding to the City Plan 2040.
Chairman of the City of London Corporation’s planning and transportation committee, Shravan Joshi, said that “as another, much needed office development gets approved in the City of London, it speaks to the confidence that global investors have in the London real estate market and the UK economy more widely.”
– CityAM.
the UK.
• Limited supply of older people’s housing. We need an estimated 30-50,000 new later living homes per annum to meet this growth – but only build around 7,000 per year.
• Living in under-occupied housing. Nearly 9 in 10 people aged 65-79 live in under-occupied housing, with over 50% living in homes with two or more excess bedrooms.
• Current offer is unaffordable for most senior citizens. New research by the Taskforce shows current private leasehold older people’s housing options are unaffordable for the majority of English households aged 75 years and over.
• Internationally behind. Around 0.6% live in Housing with Care in the UK – a tenth of the proportion in more mature markets such as the USA, Australia and New Zealand.
• Benefits of later living homes. The vast majority of over 65s – more than nine out of ten – currently live in mainstream housing – missing individual health benefits of older people’s housing and poten-
OVERPAGE: 1 Undershaft: how it compares
tial to save costs due to avoidable hospital admissions.
• Living in age-inappropriate housing. Only 12% of senior citizens had level access to the entrance of their building; less than half a bathroom on the entry level of their home.
• Not planning for the future. Older people are unaware of the options available to them and admit to ‘burying their heads’ as to their future housing needs.
There are also 83 recommendations clustered into 9 core themes and an overarching one. In summary, they are:
Core recommendations
1. Standardise definitions of Older People’s Housing/Later Living Homes (OPH/LLH) for both a professional audience and older citizens, in particular to make terms more easily understood and clearer. 2. Incentivise a wide range of OPH/LLH options; from community-led housing options and the suitability of the overall housing stock for people as
Image: DBOX
CLIPBOARD CLIPBOARD
they age to setting targets and investing in affordable housing and specialist housing to adapting and improving existing homes for later life.
3. Ensure more housing is designed for later life; from implementing Part M4(2)/M4(3) of the Building Regulations to designing for age-friendly, HAPPI and digital-ready homes.
4. Create age-friendly, dementia-inclusive, faith and culture sensitive communities; from dementiafriendly communities to age-friendly neighbourhoods in local design and spatial planning.
1 Undershaft: how it compares
5. Expand OPH/LLH at scale and ensure it is affordable to live in, and viable to finance, build and operate; from expanding affordable provision and creating greater tenure diversity to incentives that support ‘rightsizing’ and flexibilities to aid development, lending and to overcome hurdles that accelerate supply.
6. Strengthen planning policies; from strengthening planning guidance and presumptions in favour to guidance on use classes and support for assessing need.
7. Establish a national information platform and local hubs; from access to a 'Which?' style national resource to local community hubs to improve availability of information and advice.
8. Build consumer confidence; exploring the need for specific legislation/regulation for the sector that enhances product quality and supports market certainty and also provides greater consumer protection/confidence.
9. Enhance innovation, research and professional development: from a 10 year national programme and strategy, supported by research and innovation, to enabling regional and local networks that support learning and improvement.
10. Overarching recommendation - Create collective leadership to drive change: from championing a National Strategy for An Ageing Population and supporting local Memorandum of Understanding across housing, health and social care to interdepartmental working in government and better engagement with older citizens as part of an Office for an Ageing Population.
In a statement made last month by Matthew Pennycook, Minister of State for Housing and Planning, the Government published its response to the report on boosting the supply of housing for older people.
ABOVE: Graphic: The Times and Sunday Times
London affordable residential starts fall
88%
Affordable housing construction starts in London have fallen 88% year on year, according to new data published by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
The latest data on affordable housing supply shows affordable housing starts in the capital fell to just 3,156 in the 2023-24 financial year, from 26,386 starts the previous year. Affordable housing starts in England fell by 39% in the same period. – PW
Bold action called for to bolster SME housebuilding
“Within a climate of continuing challenges to the deliverability of the Government’s 1.5mil-
lion new homes target, we are pleased to see the Prime Minister’s Plan for Change not only re-state his ambition to hit that target, but also detail additional measures designed to achieve it.
However, whilst the government is making good progress on reforming the planning system, we believe that more needs to be done to support and encourage those most likely, and most quickly, able to build the new homes we need. This must include bold action to bolster the SME housebuilding industry including through SME delivery targets for Homes England alongside dedicated and flexible support for SMEs, greater access to public land opportunities, and continuing to streamline and prioritise the planning process for small residential development sites delivering affordable homes.”
– Paul Rickard, Managing Director, Pocket Living n
¡¡ PILLO! PILLO!
Bishopsgate Goodsyard finally gets go-ahead
The GLA has approved two reserved matters applications giving Ballymore and Hammerson final approval for the first phase of the £1bn Bishopsgate Goodyard development in Shoreditch.
This means construction of almost 390,000 sq ft of workspace above Shoreditch Station, as well as 6,500 sq ft of ground floor retail space and has also approved the restoration of five derelict historic buildings on Sclater Street to be used as retail, café, and co-working spaces, as well as three homes on the upper floors.
The scheme spans the London boroughs of Tower Hamlets and Hackney. It will deliver up to 500 new homes, including 50% affordable, 1.4m sq ft of workspace, a new 2.6-acre public park, restaurants, retail and leisure spaces as well as two new cultural hubs.
Last summer Boxpark Shoreditch – which had been operating for 12 years as a meanwhile use on part of the site – closed as the leisure destination’s landlords looked to pave the way for construction to begin on the transformational scheme.
Harry Badham, chief development and asset repositioning officer at Hammerson, said: “The Goodsyard is one of the last undeveloped sites of scale in central London which has the potential to lead the way in terms of placemaking and holistic regeneration. This proposed workspace building is part of creating a new international destination rooted in a unique and ever-evolving local culture.
“The workspace building will bring new physical connections to this area while delivering a significantly improved ground floor experience for both workspace users, residents and visitors to Shoreditch.”
Nimbyism and procrastination
“A proposed root-and-branch reform of the planning system will have to contend with Nimbyism and procrastination, so anyone expecting early results from this initiative will be disappointed.
There have been 20 housing ministers since 1997 who have tried and failed to solve this intractable problem.”
– Trevor Abrahmsohn, director, Glentree International in Property Week
Two cheers and one boo for Labour
“The latter directed at Sir Keir Starmer's delusion that easing planning's 'chokehold’ will disgorge 1.5 million homes by 2029.
Planning predicts and permits. Builders provide, provided they see profit.
But let's praise the party for changing the political weather on two fronts. The otherwise admirable push to net zero carbon development has seen dubious mathematics used against new build in support of make do and mend. Angela Rayner's decision to let M&S build afresh on Oxford Street changes the atmospherics on this sideshow and its barkers.”
– Peter Bill is author of Planet Property and Broken Homes and writes in PW
Crazy stat in the UK Housing Review:
Government spending on housing is at its highest: £30.5b in 2021/22 compared to £22.3bn in 1975/76, in real terms.
In the 1970s, 95% was on housebuilding, now it's only 12%.
The main reason for this drop? A rise in demand for housing benefit.
– X @meganekenyon
A bridge too far
Questions have been asked in the Lords about the closure of Hammersmith Bridge and Lord Harries invoked The Times recent comparison of the bridge with Notre Dame which burnt down five days after the bridge closed and is now fully restored.
“The bridge is an iconic structure,” replied the minister Lord Hendy. “Perhaps not as iconic as Notre Dame, but it is certainly useful locally.”
Lord Aberdare, meanwhile, said the race was on to reopen it before the Baltimore Harbor bridge, which collapsed in March but will be rebuilt by 2028. You suspect it will be a close-run thing, even though the BHB is some 12 times longer.
– The Times
TfL advises that “a long-term plan for strengthening the bridge is in development”
Planning permissions plummet
Planning permission was granted for just 2,260 properties between July and September, the lowest number on record according to the Home Builders Federation (HBF).
The total marked a 10pc fall from the previous three months, the trade body said. There was only a 2pc increase in the number of new homes approved in the quarter, but the rolling total of new homes by October last year was down 6pc on 2023.
Neil Jefferson, chief executive of the HBF, said the decline, which was the lowest figure since it started tracking new homes in 2006, was “deeply concerning”. He said: “The continued decline in planning approvals is deeply concerning and underlines the scale of the challenge we face in addressing the country’s housing crisis. “Increasing housing will require going beyond planning reform and addressing broader issues such as financing for homebuyers and a lack of providers in the market to take on the affordable housing developers build.”
– The Telegraph
The delayed performance statistics for the latest quarter are to be found in Briefing. n
Bishopsgate Goodyard development
Applications, decisions and permissions all down 6-9 per cent from the same quarter a year earlier
Latest planning performance by English districts and London boroughs: planning applications in England during July to September 2024
OVERVIEW
Between July to September 2024, district level planning authorities in England:
• received 81,600 applications for planning permission, down 7% from the same quarter a year earlier;
• decided 79,800 applications for planning permission, down 7% from the same quarter a year earlier;
• granted 69,200 decisions, down 6% from the same quarter a year earlier; this is equivalent to 87% of decisions, up 1 percentage point from the same quarter a year earlier;
• decided 90% of major applications within 13 weeks or the agreed time, up 2 percentage points from the same quarter a year earlier; and decided 20% of major applications within the statutory period of 13 weeks, down 1 percentage point from the same quarter a year earlier;
• granted 7,300 residential applications, down 8% from the same quarter a year earlier;
• granted 1,500 applications for commercial developments, down 8% from the same quarter a year earlier; and
• decided 41,500 householder development applications, down 8% from the same quarter a year earlier. This accounted for 52% of all decisions, down from 53% a year earlier. In the year ending September 2024, district level planning authorities:
• granted 275,600 decisions, down 9% from the year ending September 2023; and
• granted 31,000 residential applications, down 7% from the year ending September 2023.
Planning applications received
During July to September 2024, authorities undertaking district level planning in England received 81,600 applications for planning permission, down 7% from the same quarter a year earlier. In the year ending September 2024, authorities received 336,200 planning applications, down 9% from the year ending September 2023 (Live Table P134, PS1 Dashboard).
Planning decisions
Authorities reported 79,800 decisions on planning applications in July to September 2024, down 7% from the same quarter a year earlier. In the year ending September 2024, authorities decided 321,400 planning applications, down 9% from the year ending September 2023 (Live Tables P120/P133/P134, PS1/PS2 Dashboard).
Applications granted
During July to September 2024, authorities granted 69,200 decisions, down 6% from the same quarter a year earlier. This represented 87% of all decisions, up 1 percentage point from the same quarter a year earlier. In the year ending September 2024, authorities granted 275,600 decisions, down 9% from the year ending September 2023. Authorities granted 86% of all decisions, unchanged from the year ending September 2023 (Live Tables P120/P133, PS2 Dashboard).
Applications on hand
Authorities reported that they had 114,400 applications on hand as at 1 July 2024, down 14% from the same quarter a year earlier. This is 43% above the number of decisions made during the quarter. The corresponding figure for the same quarter a year earlier was 56%. Taking account of numbers of applications received, decisions made and applications withdrawn during the quarter gives a total of 110,000 as at the end of September 2024, down 14% from the same quarter a year earlier (Live Table P133, PS1 dashboard).
Historical context
Figure 1 shows that, since about 2009-10, the numbers of applications received, decisions made
EDITORS’ NOTE
The government published these data a month later than usual (without explanation). For this reason we have held this issue by a few days to be able to incorporate them.
and applications granted have each followed a similar pattern. As well as the usual within-year pattern of peaks in the Summer (July to September quarter) and troughs in the Autumn and Winter (October to December and January to March quarters), there was a clear downward trend during the 2008 economic downturn, followed by a period of stability. There was a large dip in 2020 following the start of the pandemic and a subsequent recovery in early 2021, including a particular peak in applications received, but since the peak there has been a steep downward trend.
Regional breakdowns
Table 1 shows how numbers of applications received, decisions made and decisions granted varied by region. It also shows how the percentage of decisions granted varies widely by region, from 82% in London to 92% in North East (Live Table P133, PS1/PS2 Dashboard).
Decisions granted
Figure 2 summarises the distribution of the percentage of decisions granted across authorities for major, minor and other developments using box and whisker plots. The ends of the box are the upper and lower quartiles, meaning that 50% of local authorities fall within this range, with the horizontal line in the centre of the box representing the median. The whiskers are the two lines above and below the box that are 1.5 times the size of the box (the interquartile range) with the dots representing outliers. Figure 2 shows that the range between the whiskers for the percentage of applications granted is widest between authorities for major developments (50% to 100%), followed by minor developments (58% to 100%) and other developments (73% to 100%) (PS2 Dashboard).
Speed of decisions
In July to September 2024, 90% of major applications were decided within 13 weeks or within the agreed time, up 2 percentage points from the same quarter a year earlier. 20% of major applications were decided within the statutory time period of 13 weeks, down 1 percentage point from the same quarter a year earlier.
Planning decisions by development type, speed of decision and local planning authority.
All tables and figures can be found here:
https://tinyurl.com/bddea5np
Source: DLUHC/ONS
In the same quarter, 87% of minor applications were decided within 8 weeks or within the agreed time, up 2 percentage points from the same quarter a year earlier. 41% of minor applications were decided within the statutory time period of 8 weeks, up 2 percentage points from the same quarter a year earlier.
Also in the same quarter, 91% of other applications were decided within 8 weeks or within the agreed time, up 1 percentage point from the same quarter a year earlier. 60% of other applications were decided within the statutory time period of 8 weeks, up 4 percentage points from the same quarter a year earlier.
Use of performance agreements
‘Performance agreement’ is an umbrella term used here to refer to Planning Performance Agreements, Extensions of Time and Environmental Impact Assessments. Between July to September 2024, 39% of all planning application decisions involved a performance agreement. Major developments were more likely to involve a performance agreement compared to minor and other developments with 77% of major decisions involving a planning agreement, compared with 51% of minor decisions and 33% of other decisions (Reference Table 2, PS2 Dashboard).
Figure 4 shows, from April 2010, the numbers of decisions on major, minor and other developments made involving a performance agreement, compared with numbers without a performance agreement. Notwithstanding definition changes, there has been a marked increase in the use of agreements since early 2013 (see Technical Notes for more information). This longer upward trend has been driven by both the additional scope for recording them and their additional use (Live Table P120, PS2 Dashboard).
Figure 5 shows that in the quarter to September 2024, 92% of major development decisions involving performance agreements were made on time. In comparison, 85% of major decisions not involving performance agreements were made within the statutory time limit of 13 weeks (see Reference Table 2, PS2 Dashboard).
Performance of individual district level local planning authorities
The existing approach to measuring the performance of authorities was introduced by the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 and is based on assessing local planning authorities’ performance on the speed and quality of their decisions on applications for major and non-major development.
Where an authority is formally designated by the Secretary of State as underperforming, applicants have had the option of submitting their applications for major and non-major development (and connected applications) directly to the Planning Inspectorate (who act on behalf of the Secretary of State) for determination. See Improving planning performance: criteria for designation for more information.
Speed of decisions
The designation thresholds, below which a local planning authority is eligible for designation are:
For applications for major development: less than 60% of an authority’s decisions made within the statutory determination period or such extended period as has been agreed in writing with the applicant;
For applications for non-major development: less than 70% of an authority’s decisions made within the statutory determination period or such extended period as has been agreed in writing with
the applicant.
See Live Tables P151/P153
Quality of decisions
development, above which a local planning authority is at risk of designation, is 10% of an authority’s total number of decisions on applications made during the assessment period being overturned at appeal.
Once the figures for the relevant period have been published in Live Table P152 or P154, which identify local planning authorities are at risk of designation by exceeding the threshold, they are invited to contact Departmental officials with any data corrections, and information on any exceptional circumstances applying to the authority that might be used as reasons why the Secretary of State should not designate them. The Secretary of State then takes this evidence into account when making decisions on which authorities should be designated. See Live Tables P152/P154
Five local planning authorities are currently designated by the Secretary of State in relation to their planning performance. These are Uttlesford District Council (on 8th February 2022), Chorley Council (on 19th December 2023) and Lewes District Council (on 8th May 2024) in relation to quality of decision-making for major applications; and St Albans City and District Council on 6th March 2024) and Bristol City Council (on 6th
March 2024) in relation to speed of decision-making for non-major applications.
Residential decisions
In July to September 2024, 9,900 decisions were made on applications for residential developments[footnote 3], of which 7,300 (74%) were granted. The number of residential decisions made was down 12% from the same quarter a year earlier, with the number granted down 8% from the same quarter a year earlier. 900 major residential decisions were granted, up 1% from the same quarter a year earlier and 6,400 minor residential decisions were granted, down 9% from the same quarter a year earlier (Live Table P120A, PS2 Dashboard).
In the year ending September 2024, 43,200 decisions were made on applications for residential developments, of which 31,000 (72%) were granted. The number of residential decisions made was down 7% from the previous year, with the number granted down 7% from the year ending September 2023. 3,800 major residential decisions were granted, down 6% from the previous year and 27,200 minor residential decisions were granted, down 7% from the previous year.
Residential units
The figures collected by the Department are the numbers of decisions on planning applications submitted to local planning authorities, rather than the number of units included in each application, such as the number of homes in the case of housing developments. The Department supplements this information by obtaining statistics on housing permissions from a contractor, Glenigan.
The latest provisional figures show that permission for 239,000 homes was given in the year to September 2024, down 6% from the 254,000 homes granted permission in the year to September 2023. On an ongoing basis, figures are revised to ensure that any duplicates are removed as far as possible, and also to include any projects that local planning authorities may not have processed: they are therefore subject to change, and the latest quarter’s provisional figures tend to be revised upwards. For the previous eight quarters, the year to figures have been revised 0.7% on average. These figures are provided here to give contextual information to users and have not been designated as National Statistics.
When considering the above figures in relation to statistics on housing supply, it should be noted that many permissions do not result in a home being delivered in practice. This is due to a range of reasons, relating to the circumstances of landowners and developers, as well as the local and national economy. In addition, i) time lags in building can affect the number of homes built in a particular
period; and ii) the methodology used cannot guarantee that all double counting of permissions is removed from the above figures.
In comparing the number of residential applications granted and the number of units granted, it should be noted that the two series measure different things and use data from different sources, and so may not track each other closely over the short term. More specifically, this difference is likely to be due to a combination of differences in the timing of recorded decisions and a difference in the average numbers of homes included within the relevant planning applications.
Commercial decisions
In July to September 2024, 1,700 decisions were made on applications for commercial developments[footnote 5], of which 1,500 (89%) were granted. The number of commercial decisions made was down 10% from the same quarter a year earlier, with the number granted down 8% from the same quarter a year earlier. 300 major commercial
decisions were granted, down 2% from the same quarter a year earlier and 1,200 minor commercial decisions were granted, down 10% from the same quarter a year earlier (Live Table P120B, PS2 Dashboard).
In the year ending September 2024, 7,400 decisions were made on applications for commercial developments, of which 6,500 (88%) were granted. The number of commercial decisions made was down 5% from the previous year, with the number granted down 6% from the year ending September 2023. 1,400 major commercial decisions were granted, down 5% from the previous year and 5,100 minor commercial decisions were granted, down 7% from the previous year.
Trends in the percentage of residential and commercial decisions granted
SEE Fig 7 BELOW
Householder developments
Householder developments are those developments to a residence which require planning permission such as extensions, loft conversions and conservatories (see Definitions section of the Technical Notes).
The number of decisions made on householder developments was 41,500 in the quarter ending September 2024, accounting for 52% of all decisions, down from 53% of all decisions made in the quarter ending September 2023. Authorities granted 89% of these applications and decided 92% within eight weeks or the agreed time (Reference Table 2, PS2 Dashboard).
In the year ending September 2024, 164,000 decisions were made on applications for householder developments, accounting for 51% of all decisions, down from 54% of all decisions made in the year ending September 2023. Authorities granted 89% of these applications and decided 92% within eight weeks or the agreed time.
Major public service infrastructure development decisions
Since August 2021, major public service infrastructure developments broadly defined as major developments for schools, hospitals and criminal justice accommodation have been subject to an accelerated decision-making timetable.
Separate figures on major public service infrastructure development decisions have been collected on the quarterly PS2 return with effect from October 2021. During July to September 2024 there were 17 decisions, of which all 17 were granted and 16 were decided in time (Live Table MJPSI, PS2 Dashboard). Please note that figures are not collected on the CPS1/2 return and so don’t include education developments by county councils.
Permission in Principle/Technical Details consent decisions
Since April 2017, local planning authorities have had the ability to grant permission in principle (PiP) to sites which have been entered on their brownfield land registers. Where sites have a grant of permission in principle, applicants have been able to submit an application for Technical Details Consent (TDC) for development on these sites. In addition, since June 2018, it has also been possible to make an application for PiP for minor housing-led development as a separate application, independently of the brownfield register. Where a site has been granted PiP following an application, it is possible to apply for a TDC.
Figures on PiP/TDC decisions have been collected on the quarterly PS2 return from January 2020. During July to September 2024, local planning authorities reported 142 PiP (minor housing-led developments) decisions, 15 TDC (minor housing-
led developments) decisions and 1 TDC (major developments) decision. The totals for the previous quarters have been similar although there has been a slow upward trend since 2020, when there were about 60 PiP decisions per quarter (Live Table PiP/TDC1, PS2 dashboard).
Permitted development rights
Planning permission for some types of development has been granted nationally through legislation, and the resulting rights are known as ‘permitted development rights’ (PDRs). For certain permitted development rights, if the legislation is complied with, developments can go ahead without the requirement to notify the local planning authority. Hence no way of capturing this data exists and these are not accounted for in this report. In other cases, the permitted development right legislation requires an application to the local planning authority to determine whether or not prior approval is required and to determine as appropriate (see the Definitions section of the Technical
Notes).
Between July to September 2024, 6,200 applications were reported, of which prior approval was not required for 3,100, permission was granted for 1,800, and 1,300 were refused. This resulted in an overall acceptance rate[footnote 6] of 79%. Large householder extension accounted for 55% of all PDR applications reported, with 26% relating to All others, 8% relating to Commercial Business and service to residential, and 7% relating to agriculture to residential (Live Tables PDR1/PDR2).
In the quarter to September 2024, 1,100 permitted development right applications were made for changes to residential use, of which 700 (67%) were given the go-ahead without having to go through the full planning process (Live Table PDR 1).
Overall during the 42 quarters ending September 2024, district planning authorities reported 345,000 applications for prior approvals for permitted developments. For 191,700 of them prior approval was not required, 82,000 were granted and 71,400 were refused (Live Table PDR2). n
London’s strategic planning issues The Location of Development Custom and Self Build progress in London Changes
in planning from the new government
Account of the Forum meeting on Tuesday 9th December 2024 hosted by London Councils Report by Brian Whiteley of RTPI’s Planning Aid England & Lee Mallett for Planning in London also at www.planninginlondon.com >LP&DF
Discussion items:
Review of London’s strategic planning issues – the London Housing Crisis
Simon King explained how London Councils has set up a Strategic Policies Task & Finish Group to consider the key policy positions for London, including responding to the government’s agenda around issues such as grey belt release and housing delivery. London Councils is also looking at how to support borough collaboration on planning performance and capacity.
The Location of Development
Harry Quartermain of LandTec introduced this latest RTPI research report – cf: https://www.rtpi.org.uk/research-rtpi/2024/november/lofd4report/ showing that the majority of new housing delivered is not necessarily resulting in more sustainable behaviour or in truly sustainable locations.
Custom and Self Build progress in London
Sally Tagg, Acting Head of the Right to Build Taskforce explained how RBT was set up in 2017 by the National Custom and Self Build Association. It aims to support LPAs and community groups to deliver custom and self-build housing. Part-funded by central Government, it provides free technical support to LPAs, amongst other things.
Changes in planning from the new government:
Riette Oosthuizen, head of planning, HTA Design [see her article in Property Week here: https://tinyurl.com/mrx9fvab introduced a general discussion to gauge views on the new Government’s proposals for the planning system.
Stephen King Review of London’s strategic planning issues – the London Housing Crisis
Stephen King of London Councils (LC) briefly explained that LC comprises leading Members from the 32 London Boroughs and the City of London Corporation. It has set up a Strategic Policies Task & Finish Group to consider the key policy positions for London, including responding to the government’s agenda around issues such as infrastructure provision, grey belt release and housing delivery.
He then outlined the scale and major issues raised by the ongoing housing crisis in London. One key facet is that the number of children in temporary accommodation is alarmingly high. LC estimates one child in every London classroom now is technically homeless. A significant drop in the private rented sector has led to increased costs for the Boroughs. They are spending £4m daily to provide temporary accommodation for the homeless (for further details see the GLA’s latest annual housing report at: https://data.london.gov.uk/housing/housing-in-london).
Yet housing supply has flat-lined, with build-out rates for new housing having halved whilst construction costs have risen sharply over the last two years, raising concerns about the viability of many housing projects. Further, caps on local authority
ATTENDANCE
and housing association rents have slowed their ability to provide more housing.
SK argued that to meet London’s housing needs:
• there is a need for a re-evaluation of Green Belt land in London – e.g. at Crews Hill in Enfield and at Tottenham Hale in Haringey.
• LC are concerned at the decrease in the capacity of place making teams across the boroughs –which often lack in-house legal, ecology or valua-
tion support. It supports provision of a central planning resource to make such skills available across London’s planning services, and • devolution of stamp duty and business rate income to London might help it met funding gaps for transport and other infrastructure.
In subsequent discussion Brian Whiteley asked whether the boroughs were looking at metropolitan open land and increased suburban densities to meet future housing needs, recalling previous stud-
Meeting held on Tuesday 9th December 2024 and hosted by London Councils
Brian Waters, BWCP, Chairman
Riette Oosterhuizen, HTA Design
Brian Whiteley, RTPI Planning Aid
Serena Perry London Councils (host)
Sally Tagg, FT planning
Stephen King, London Councils
Harry Quartermain, Land Tech
John Lett, formerly GLA
Dr Mark Collett, Adjaye
Steve Norris Steve Norris, LSH
Jolyon Drury, JD logistics
Bill Dunster, Zed Power
Stephen Heath, Bloomsbury Assn
Mark Willingale, Willingale Assoc
Michael Bach, London Forum
Prof Michael Edwards, UCL
Jessica Ferm, UCL
David Hart, Momentum Transport
Luke Tozer, Pitman Tozer
Jacqui Daly, Savills
Andrew Catto, ACA/AC architects
Duncan Bowie, UCL
Peter Stewart, Townscape Consultancy
Lee Mallett, Urbik/Planning in London
Prof Les Mayhew, Bayes Business School
Richard Claridge, ACA/architect
Daniela Favero, ACA/architect
Samia Almaqarleh ,ACA/architect
Steve Crosslands, ACA/architect
Tara Gbolade Gbolade, Design Studio
Apologies:
Judith Ryser
Mike Kiely, Planning Officers Assn
Dr Daniel Slade, RTPI
Paul Finch, EMAP
ies on the subject. Stephen King indicated that some boroughs are considering small sites for projects. He emphasized the political challenges surrounding suburban intensification.
Duncan Bowie expressed disappointment with the London Councils' fragmented approach to strategic planning and housing, highlighting the challenges of representing 33 authorities with differing views. He called for a more cohesive strategy regarding the London Plan and questioned the absence of a current London housing strategy.
Discussion
Other Forum participants highlighted:
• ongoing concern that re-evaluation of existing Green Belt designations is yet to gather speed
• the disparity in council house building rates and the need for other regions to contribute more significantly to housing efforts
• the necessity for strategic planning that encompasses both London and the wider South East (e.g. nothing replaced the former SERPLAN advisory body, which might have facilitated better co-ordination)
• the effectiveness of the National Planning Policy Framework in facilitating strategic planning and addressing the housing crisis
• the revised NPPF does not adequately address London's unique planning needs - with one speaker noting that it fails to mention London in its consultations – it is not a spatial planning document, rather one oriented towards development management and planning processes
• the difficulties faced by developers in navigating the planning system, including excessive legal requirements and delays in securing approvals for projects
• housing development pressures on London’s existing employment land designations is leading to a threat to its logistics sector in particular –especially in inner London
• scepticism about London's growth model, particularly in light of Brexit and the need for more affordable housing
• the Elizabeth Line is noted for its potential to expand living options for commuters, yet there is a lack of studies quantifying its impact on housing prices and employment opportunities. n
•the build-out rate has roughly halved from the mid-2000s, from 24% in 2005-06 to 11% in 2022-23.
•A build-out rate of 10% would mean we need a pipeline of 810,000 approved homes to complete 81,000 a year, while returning the rate to 20% would reduce that figure to 405,000.
•Average inflation-adjusted pay for a town planner fell from £48,000 in 2005 to £33,000 in 2022 - a real terms decline of almost a third (RTPI, 2023).
•The number of public sector planners shrunk by a quarter between 2009 and 2020, with the number in the private sector doubling in the same period (RTPI, 2023).
•Three in five (58%) local authorities say they are experiencing difficulties in recruiting planning officers, a figure higher than for any other occupation in local government (LGA, 2022).
• In 2022/23, the national development management service (local planning services) cost £794 million to operate with an estimated funding shortfall of £262 million per annum – (King’s Speech notes)
•76% of local authorities consider they have a backlog
•Approximately 40% of planners are women, and only 5% are from an ethnic minority/Global Majority background (RTPI, 2023) and only 8% have a disability that they disclosed (POS survey 2024)
•85% do not share planning services with another authority (POS Survey 2024)
Strategic planning task and fin
•approximately 5,500 homes, together with a mix of other uses providing local services and facilities
•Railway station
•Currently mix of uses –developed land within the Green belt
“is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open” around urban areas.
It is for local planning authorities (LPAs) to define and maintain green belt land in their local areas.
NPPF has failed to reduce car dependency
Harry Quartermain , head of research for LandTech, on the latest RTPI research using LandTech data: Location of development – are we building in car dependency?
Quartermain kicked off with an explanation of why the research is important. His first slide titled Healthy Places showed the number of road-related deaths globally over ten years. While deaths involving cars had reduced, all other road related deaths were stable, so roads are ‘still quite treacherous’, said Quartermain. Car related road deaths have fallen from more than 1200 to around 700 per annum in ten years.
His second slide, however, showed the number of deaths by road, chronic cardiovascular, respiratory causes over the same period. Deaths by the latter two causes are much, much higher, with cardiovascular deaths falling from 180,000 to 160,000 for example, over ten years.
That’s why the location and healthiness of places we build is so important he said. The impact of car dependency ‘is both chronic and acute’. Not driving everywhere would keep us healthier because of the exercise involved and the absence of pollution. Sedentary lifestyles are the ‘much bigger killer’.
LandTech’s research looked at planning applications and approvals over the ten year period n which the NPPF has been around. One of its key objectives is building the right homes in the right places, encouraging healthy travel and active lifestyles.
‘We looked at where these approvals were coming forward within major applications. And we looked at how long it takes to get from those locations to key destinations based on NPPF objectives (employment centres, schools, GP surgeries, hospitals, town centres).’
‘The idea being if the homes are being delivered in the right place we should be able to use public or active transport, or walk to these key destinations in good time. We used the 20-minute metric.’
He made the point that good data was essential if issues were to be identified and managed – ‘if you can’t measure it you can’t manage it’. The research he said was based on the FT’s journey times data (which ended in 2019). He said that while data in London was good, elsewhere this was not the case.
‘So how long did it take to get from the location
of the approvals we looked at, to the destinations we’ve identified?’
His graph showed that between 2012 and 2021the average journey time from homes approved in that period around England to key destinations had risen slightly from around 17 to 18.5 minutes. Car journey times had stayed absolutely static at 10 minutes. Public transport/cycling journeys had increased slightly to just below average times, why cycling was also fairly static at around 15 minutes. Walking journey times had increased from an average of 30 minutes in 2012 by two to three minutes.
‘That’s three time longer, if you want to walk,’ he said.
And breaking those times down by destination presented an even less appealing prospect without a car. To visit your GP, for example, you might expect to drive for eight minutes, compared to walking for 15 minutes. The average time for driving to the hospital was 18 minutes, compared to 64 minutes walking, or 37 by public transport. The driving times are all under 20 minutes.
Journey times to key destinations by mode
Looking at average times for modes of transport times by region, London is doing ‘very well’ said Quartermain, by comparison with the English regions. Walking to key destinations in London will take you an average of 18 minutes, compared to an England average of 32 minutes. A much greater disparity was also revealed, unsurprisingly, between urban and rural locations, with rural destinations taking 2.3 times longer than urban on average across all transport modes.
He showed a graph illustrating average walking times by region, excluding hospitals, over ten years, from 2012 to 2021. ‘London has done quite well
Deaths/injuries by road, cardiovascular and respiratory causes
The blue line is road injuries, black is respiratory, green cardiovascular diseases
and remains miles ahead of anywhere else in the country.’ But ‘generally, places haven’t improved [the journey time],’ he said.
Average walking times by region
‘What you would expect to see if applications were coming forward in places that were better connected with more active transport and infrastructure, you’d hope to see those lines coming down. Over the time shown, that clearly isn’t the case.’
And, taking the 20 minute metric, and seeing what percentage of destinations are within that metric across different modes of travel, shows that while 92% of all destinations are reached within 20 minutes by care only 54% are by walking, 81% by cycling and 70% by public transport.
‘The overarching output of this is that despite
policy being in place to encourage active transport, better public transport, to encourage people to get out of their cars, over the last ten years the applications we have looked at have not been in a better location than they were at the start of the NPPF.’
Grey Belt opportunity sites
‘The question is “can we do better? So we looked at Grey Belt land. I think this is where the opportunity lies. We looked at potential Grey Belt sites throughout the country and a key criteria was accessibility. Are these locations sustainable? Can you get there by public transport? How connected are they?’
LandTech whittled down the number of constrained sites using various factors. ‘If policy comes forward in the way it was consulted on, we will see a lot of these sites come forward and they are much better connected than a lot of the sites we’ve seen developed over the last ten years. So maybe the future is bright.’
His final slide showed London boroughs where housing targets were substantially increased recently, and those where targets had been reduced showed a better correlation with their average PTAL scores – ie new housing across London should be better located according to its accessibility.
In a down beat conclusion however, he said there had been ‘no significant changes over the ten year study period in journey times’, that ‘access to amenities remains very unequal, but added that the ‘research fulfils an important purpose in the policy landscape’ by measuring not just how many homes are approved, but also whether they are in locations that incentivise sustainable transport.
‘It’s not just us saying this, so I hope people will start to listen,’ he concluded.
Discussion
In Q&A after, Michael Bach pointed out: ‘the NPPF is total silent on this topic. There is an opportunity to get spatial development back into the NPPF in terms of what constitutes a good location,’ he argued. Bach said he was pleased to see LandTech’s research on Grey Belt land because this hinted at what the suitable criteria might be for picking sustainable locations in spatial terms.
Quartermain said LandTech had given MHCLG all its research data: ‘What we’ve looked at, how we’ve come to our conclusions with the idea of helping them quantify the potential impact of the Grey Belt policy, as we’d interpreted it.’ He added LandTech was a data-led company so there were other ‘subjectivities’ around the selection of sites and the purposes of Green or Grey Belt are not at the moment data-led, he pointed out. ‘We talked to them about how they could potentially make that process more data-driven.’
Prof. Les Mayhew of the Bayes Business School observed: ‘It is quite depressing these travel times
have become almost hard-wired, so it always takes 15 minutes to walk to a GP or much longer to go to a hospital. Have we got distribution of these services right?’ He also queried the accuracy of the database.
‘There are some shortcomings in the data. We know the MHCLG is looking at a new connectivity tool and should be releasing that next year. That will be important for making sure that there’s ability to look at the sustainability through the metric of connectivity for new developments and how to make existing places better connected,’ said Quartermain. ‘There are some interesting things coming that will help that issue.’
Average journey times by different modes over 10 years
Journey times to key destinations by mode
Average walking times by region
‘I would argue the best place to put new homes is where those amenities already are. I worked in Australia for a number of years where they work under a zonal system. And if you want to encourage new development in better connected locations there, you can make changes to the zoning to encourage that. We lack that here. We need to have a better look at how we do things.’
Asked what kind of policy he’d like to see from housing minister Angela Rayner he said he hoped the policies on Grey Belt land would ‘not be too different from what’s been consulted on’ because it was likely to encourage some more sustainably located sites to come forward. ‘I’m excited to see what comes out of the brown field planning passports,’ He said. ‘My house is a “brownfield” site if I wanted to redevelop it. If the system could put in place a bit more certainty of outcome then people might be more willing to look at rolling the dice on regenerating areas like suburban areas where there are already amenities, transport links and access to other people. n
Harry Quartermain’s presentation is available on: https://www.rtpi.org.uk/news/2024/november/new-housingfails-to-move-away-from-car-dependency-report-finds/. His slides are here: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1y0WjWLVodTH0pz9H NmBjO4aOAUuTJxhZPNKa79rIH1U/edit?usp=sharing. And Land Tech’s previous webinars on the RTPI report are available here: https://land.tech/resource-centre/missed-opportunitiesin-sustainable-housing-webinar, and on Grey Belt here: https://land.tech/resource-centre/unlocking-development-opportunities-with-the-grey-belt
Making self-build mainstream
Sally Tagg, acting head of the Right to Build Taskforce, wants to see custom- and self-build become a mainstream option in tackling the housing crisis
The Taskforce, whose work Sally Tagg explained to Forum members, was set up by the National Custom and Self-build Association in 2017. It works to help local authorities, community groups and other organisations to support delivery of affordable, custom and self build housing with projects of all shapes and sizes, she explained. We provide training to local authorities and our mission is to scale up delivery to the point where custom and self-build is a mainstream housing option.
‘The Task Force is partly funded by MHCLG. We have a broad range of specialisms - planners and architects, urban designers, sustainability experts, and experts in community-led affordable housing and project delivery amongst others. We engage with all sorts of organisations, and we’ve undertaken training with the Planning Inspectorate and a great number of community-led projects. We also work with Homes England presenting at their training events, the ‘Summer’ and ‘Winter Learning Programme’.
Tagg indicated that she had also been involved with the roundtable discussions with Matthew Pennycook [Minister for Housing, Communities and Local Government] in respect of the NPPF consultations representing the Task Force. ‘We work with the Local Government Association, and they kindly hosted a webinar which we presented ‘Delivering self and custom-build homes: the council perspective’, to celebrate the annual ‘Right to Build Day’ on the 30th of October 2024. Tagg, also explained as part of the engagement strategy she recently spoke at the London Boroughs Planning Officers Association, as she feels we need to ensure self and custom build housing is on the agenda in Urban authority areas in England as well as Fringe and Rural authorities.
She explained that self-build was where the self builder directly organises the design and construction of their homes. Very few actually do the main construction work. These may include self-finish schemes; shell homes and homeowner finishes con-
RIGHT: Case study
Blenheim Grove, Peckham, Southwark, London SE15
This is now built on a very linear brown field site right next to the railway line. It came forward for community-led provision, but it didn’t prove viable. A company called Unboxed Homes (led by developer Gus Zogolovitch) came forward. They proposed a shell scheme, including three custom build units and apartments to shell finish and fit-out stage.
‘The units were hugely in demand because finding sites in London is not easy, especially sites that you can do your own thing on. This is an example of a shell the occupiers would be working with. They would then fit that out.’
struction. while custom build is where a purchaser works with a builder, specialist developer or ‘enabler’ to deliver homes. It is important to understand what it is.
This might involve the enabler providing just the serviced plot, but the home is built to the purchaser’s specification. In planning terms the key consideration is that an element of the home is determined by the occupant. RIGHT: Case study Blenheim Grove, Peckham, Southwark, London SE15. This is built on a very linear brown field site right next to the railway line. It came forward for community-led provision, but didn’t prove viable. A company called Unboxed Homes (led by developer Gus Zogolovitch) came forward. They proposed a shell scheme, including three custom build units and apartments to shell finish and fit-out stage. Unboxed Homes finished the scheme including custom-build houses and apartments.
Photo: French & Tye BELOW: Shell finish interior, ready for fitting out. Photo: Angela Harding ‘The units were hugely in demand because finding sites in London is not easy, especially sites with an opportunity for self-finishing to your own specifications. This is an example of a shell the occupiers would be working with. They would then fit that out.’ ABOVE: Shell finish interior, ready for fitting out. Photo: Angela Harding. BELOW: CGI of planned interior fit-out. Custom Self Build can be small or large scale, on green or brownfield sites, high or low density, or part of a regeneration scheme and there are lots of delivery models, including:
• Individual commission/self-build
• Community Land Trust
• Collective or co-housing custom project
• Serviced or self-build plots on small or large sites
• Custom build on larger strategic housing sites in
An authority … must give development permission for the carrying out of self-build and custom housebuilding on enough serviced plots of land to meet the demand for self-build and custom housebuilding in the authority's area arising in each base period.
LURA removed “suitable” ambiguity
>>> form of percentage policy plots for custom or selfbuild
• Commercial custom builder-enabled homes
• Self-finish homes
• Starter homes / First Homes
• Affordable homes – Exception or RP-led
Learn more:
Said Tagg. ‘I’ve been in the sector since about 2007 and seen how significant progress has been made. We can see how it’s been evolving over that timeline.’ The NPPF first mentioned people building their own homes in 2012. There has also been the introduction of the Community Infrastructure Levy exemptions for custom and self-build homes to facilitate the sector. And of course The Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 introduced a statutory duty on councils to keep and publish a register of individuals and associations of individuals who wish to acquire serviced plots for such housing, which has to be taken into account when they prepare planning and other related policies. They must ensure enough ‘suitable’ self and custom build plots are permissioned to meet demand. She drew attention to the wording in the NPPG, as opposed to what is said in the Act and the NPPF. ‘It is the NPPG that makes reference to custom and self-build and the need “for primary input into [a home’s] final design and layout”, although the NPPGs have not been updated to take account of the 2024 LURA provisions – this is still an important and a further reference to making sure self and custom build housing is planned for.
She also talked about the large number of small sites in London that are suitable for custom and self build, also for community-led schemes and affordable homes. She then showed some case study examples that demonstrated a wide variety of approaches. All case studies are available free on https://right tobuild.org.uk/resources/case_studies. A selection follows. An authority … must give development permission for the carrying out of self-build and custom housebuilding on enough serviced plots of land to meet the demand for self-build and custom housebuilding in the Authority's area arising in each base period.
!"#$"#%&"'"()*%"+%!,-./*01%2/00.1230.3'*,4..#$%&''()*$+,"(#%"*5&0.,060+(7809'.1(93$3'3.(:.;<.:+2'3.$9.2.#29%0.3$=03.29,.'09*#03>. as follows: • 3%/"4.05%',#6,$%+506/?.@.A.B.)0,#((8.29,.C.A.C.)0,#((8". 7%!"#$"#%!.8.#)%9,#6%:+2'3.for sharers: 2 x 3 bedroom. • :7%;*0',$%"-#,'/*.<%+506/?.B.A.B.)0,#((8>.@.A.C.)0,#((8>. 4 x 3 bedroom and 3 x 4 bedroom. • :3%=.>,$%,?(.6@%+506/?.D.A.B.)0,#((8.29,.E.A.C.)0,#((8". F+29?./&07&02#,.G73'0$9.H*9'0#
• the government's positive message about the role planning can play in securing housing more quickly.
• the complexity of the current development management process and the need for a more streamlined approach – the length of time it now involves significantly raises the development costs of projects
• projects are also slowing due to uncertainty over the Fire Regulations
• the potential role and the importance of design
codes
• there is a consensus that the NPPF does not adequately address urban needs, particularly London’s – e.g. there is no recognition in it that “London is different”
In subsequent discussion Forum attendees noted:
• to meet its housing needs London now has to see 80k new homes provided annually – i.e. twice the numbers currently being built
• the new Government’s actions to improve the planning system are insufficient – e.g. funding for 300 additional planners across England amounts
to only 0.8 extra planners per local planning authority – measures such as increased digitisation, “brownfield passports” or local development orders are still not coming forward quickly enough to speed up the planning process
• the limitations of the upcoming document on the London Plan, with Michael Edwards noting that it primarily involves minor tweaks rather than significant changes. n
SEE her article in Property Week here: https://tinyurl.com/mrx9fvab
London Planning & Development Forum
“An essential travelling companion for those in the FAC-1 team, with Professor Mosey as your expert tour guide.” — Julian Bailey, partner at Jones Day and author of Construction Law (3rd edition)
“… provides excellent guidance to support the effective use of FAC-1.” — Alison Nicholl, head of Constructing Excellence
“… enables all parties to a project or programme of works to understand their roles and responsibilities in creating an alliance capable of delivering safe, quality and value-formoney project outcomes.” — Rebecca Rees, partner at Trowers & Hamlins
“An essential catalyst in helping clients and industry supply chains actively work together to deliver the new ways of working that are required to unlock the vision of a social and productivity revolution that our industry needs.” — Terry Stocks MBE FICE, director at Faithful+Gould
“The best friend of everyone, in every sector of the construction industry, who wants to make a real difference.” — John P. Welch FRICS, Deputy Director of Construction, Crown Commercial Service
Dr David Mosey CBE is a professor at the King’s College London Centre of Construction Law & Dispute Resolution and was formerly head of the projects and construction department at law firm Trowers & Hamlins. He is the principal author of the FAC-1 Framework Alliance Contract and has advised on the procurement of collaborative projects and programmes of work for more than twenty years. David was appointed by the UK government in 2021 to lead an independent review of public sector construction frameworks. His recommendations for improving value, improving safety, managing risk and achieving net zero carbon are set out in ‘Constructing the Gold Standard’ and have been widely endorsed by both government and industry. David received the 2021 TECSA Clare Edwards Award for ‘professional excellence and an outstanding contribution to the legal profession’ and was awarded a CBE in the 2023 New Year honours list for ‘services to the construction industry’.
A planning quiz for 2025 ROGERS
Question 1.
How are researchers from the University of Essex assessing the environmental impact of off-shore wind farm turbines? Is it by
(a) sending questionnaires to everyone who has objected to the provision of turbines;
(b) analysing the RSPB’s technical report on the deaths of seabirds;
(c) taking samples from the sea around Cumbria’s long-established offshore wind farm;
(d) comparing the biodiversity effects on the seabed at the base of fifty wind turbines.
Question 2.
Question 2
Why must these four holiday chalets built by John Phillips in Landimore, Gower be demolished? Is it because
(a) they make the land look untidy and erode the character of the site;
(b) they are visible from the Welsh Coastal Path;
(c) a retrospective planning application was refused;
(d) Mr Phillips felt the situation was “totally unfair”.
Question 3.
Which (if any) of these measures are included in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act?
(a) local authorities must prepare infrastructure strategies;
(b) local plans must be limited to locally specific matters;
(c) every local planning authority must have a local design code covering their entire area;
(d) the introduction of a system of “street votes”.
Question 4.
Why was an appeal against refusal of planning permission for a floating home in the Hampshire countryside successful? Was it because
(a) pockets of nearby development comprised a settlement;
(b) new sustainable countryside homes should always be allowed;
(c) the appeal inspector ruled that it was a design of exceptional quality;
(d) the planning application included a satisfactory flood risk assessment.
Question 5.
Why was an appeal against a planning in principle (PiP) application for four houses close to a motorway in Worcestershire successful? Was it because
(a) the need for new houses overwhelms all other considerations;
(b) adequate living conditions for future residents were not demonstrated;
(c) the effect of noise is not a relevant consideration at PiP stage;
(d) the local planning authority miscalculated the site area.
Question 6.
Why was the enforcement notice taken out by Kensington & Chelsea against two unauthorised houseboats on the Thames at Cheyne Walk quashed? Was it because
(a) Biodiversity Net Gain doesn’t apply to river sites;
(b) they had been moored in place for twenty years;
(c) a flood risk assessment was deemed to be unnecessary;
(d) a planning inspector found they contributed positively to the area.
Question 7.
Why were solar panels permitted at a grade II Elizabethan listed building in West Sussex? Was it because
(a) they were designed to look like historic roof tiles;
(b) they were located in the grounds, not on the building;
(c) there were only two so the impact was negligible;
(d) they could not be seen from ground level.
Question 8.
Why did an appeal Inspector allow an additional 36 houses on an edge-of-town allocated housing site in Essex? Was it because
Andy Rogers is a planning consultant and former director in architects The Manser Practice
Question 4
Question 6
(a) he rejected the council’s claim that they should comply with national space standards;
(b) the proposed density of the development was below that of the surrounding area;
(c) there was a good bus service, so private car use would not be excessive;
(d) they were designed to be in keeping with the nearby townscape.
Question 9.
Why did an Essex council refuse the discharge of conditions attached to a planning permission for 14 flats? Was it because
(a) samples of materials and details of hard landscaping were inadequate;
(b) the development had already commenced;
(c) the measures for remediation of contamination were unacceptable;
(d) details of surface water drainage did not comply with the council’s standards.
Question 10.
Did the Court of Appeal in 2022 rule that the words “immediately adjoining” should not be unduly prescriptive because they do not necessarily mean
(a) contiguous;
(b) coterminous;
(c) next to; or
(d) very near?
ANSWERS
Question 1. (c) Dr Natalie Hicks, from the university, said “We know our demand for net zero energy targets means we have seen an increase in offshore wind farms, so understanding any environmental effects of these wind farms is urgent”.
Question 2. All four. The appeal inspector, Richard Duggan, assessed the impact of the chalets on the character and appearance of the landscape, which is part of the Gower Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, their impact on highway safety, ecology and the living conditions
of nearby residents, adding “The view from the public footpath, albeit only for approximately 100m, is valuable as part of the experience of walking within the AONB and the development seriously harms that view”.
Question 3. All four, but none have yet been implemented: it’s not yet clear when (or if) the new government will bring these and other measures included in the Act forward.
Question 4. (c) The appeal Inspector took the view that the reservoir site could be considered isolated, being about one kilometre from the village edge and separated from it by farmland. It would therefore benefit from the NPPF paragraph 80e) [currently 84e)]which in principle supports isolated homes of exceptional design quality in the countryside.
Question 5. (c) The inspector ruled that whether the proposal could be designed to provide adequate mitigation against noise was not a relevant matter for permission in principle stage. The proposal consisted of new infill housing within a designated development boundary and a full award of costs was made to the appellant as the council had delayed a development which clearly should have been permitted.
Question 6. (d) The council argued that two larger boats, among four others, had caused a change of use of the land through intensification because of their size and form. But the inspector felt there was no “fundamental change” in the character of the area, adding “The variety and type of the houseboats, their different designs, colours and forms, creates an eclectic mix which is attractive and provides a sense of place. Overall, the moorings form a unique enclave with a distinct residential character which contributes positively to the Thames Conservation Area and the setting of the adjoining Cheyne Conservation Area.”
Question 7. (b) Mid Sussex District Council was concerned about the impact on the listed Paxhill House, as well as the Garden and Forecourt Walls
and Gate Piers, Coach House and Gazebo (all grade II listed). Inspector D Szymanski noted that panels would be low level structures in the hillside landscape and would result in “less than substantial harm to the setting and significance of four designated heritage assets… [and would] future proof against potential rises in energy costs, particularly for the upkeep of a large historic house.”
Question 8. (a) The council accepted the affordable housing element of the proposal but argued that as it did not meet the Nationally Described Space Standards it was unacceptable. The inspector noted that the standard was not a requirement of local plan policy and made an award of costs to the applicant for unnecessary work in contesting the point, adding further that there was no evidence of alleged overdevelopment.
Question 9. (b) The council refused to discharge ‘pre-commencement’ conditions simply because the development had already commenced - even though the application was made prior to commencement. The inspector noted that there was no dispute about the acceptability of the details submitted to discharge the conditions, which in any event he ruled did not ‘go to the heart’ of the permission.
Question 10. All four. The everyday meaning of words should be applied, according to Sir Keith Lindblom, with “a degree of flexibility”, adding “The words ‘immediately adjoining’ do not require an elaborate explanation. They should not be given an unduly prescriptive meaning… the site and proposed development can be regarded as sufficiently close to the settlement in question to be ‘immediately adjoining’ it.”
So there we have it. Pragmatism and common sense will usually win out in the long run against the restrictive and pettifogging decisions of many local planning authorities. n
Paul Finch’s wide-ranging overview and some conclusions, including: The decision by the political class to rely increasingly on the private sector to build a social housing programme was doomed from the start
Why has planning lost its appeal?
All governments have plans: they are the quasi-promises made in election manifestos; the commitments declared in the annual King’s Speech; the countless policy announcements, Orders in Parliament, Green Papers, White Papers and legislation itself. Life may be what happens when you are busy making other plans, but it doesn’t stop them coming.
Plans, however, are not quite the same thing as ‘planning’, which in recent years has become a pejorative word, indeed almost a term of abuse. Angela Rayner’s recent criticisms of the planning system, and Rachael Reeve’s inclusion of planning reform as part of a programme of economic growth, only echo the complaints and reforms made by Conservative Chancellors and Secretaries of State over the past decade.
The National Planning Policy Framework was in urgent need of change, we were told, by people who may have been unaware that the NPPF was introduced to encourage economic growth through presumptions made in favour of development; to speed up decision-making via a strong element of conformity in local plans; and (crucial in dear old heritage-obsessed Blighty) to ensure the preservation of local character and environments. Promote community consultation too. Flawed from the start you might say, but nevertheless an acknowledgement of the importance of planning to the economy.
Replacing a plethora of guidance and codes on multiple planning subjects, the NPPF was only introduced in 2012, a significant contribution to the planning system introduced by a Labour government in 1947 via the Town & Country Planning Act. Our planning system is a Labour invention, yet has been the subject of accusations that it is failing the country and has been ‘reformed’ yet again. Why is this? Why has planning lost its appeal?
Ambiguity
Right from the start, there was an ambiguity in the system being created, as to whether it was there to enable growth, or to limit it. To encourage or to control, to be proactive or reactive. The origins of what became known as development control lie surely in the system of building licenses, themselves based on materials shortages, which were part and parcel of post-World War II recovery. Getting a planning permission was like winning the lottery, granted as though they were butter coupons – the state doing you a favour by giving you access to something in short supply.
Prior to 1947, you could build what you liked on your own land -- unless someone could show good reason why you should not do so. After that date, land was in effect deemed to be controlled by the state, in the form of local planning authorities, whose permission would be required prior to any construction. Ownership didn’t change, but control did. Recent announcements about compulsory purchase at below market value, and the redefining of certain sites as ‘grey’ is part of a
continuum of occasionally mindless thinking about ownership, control and responsibility.
Some may remember John Prescott’s novel idea that millions of gardens were ‘brownfield’ land because they had previously been built on, when the whole point was that they hadn’t: it was the houses built on agricultural or open countryside which were development, the gardens being the green survivors of construction activity. This may explain why, in a Mipim speech, Mr Prescott referred not to Welwyn Garden City, but Welwyn Garden Centre, to the amusement of everybody except himself.
New towns
New towns are another long-running feature of the planning system, currently being given a new lease of life, which signify a divergent view of who should be responsible for what. Their creation, and the development corporations that followed them, assumed that elected local authorities were incapable of handling development at large scale – or that the political difficulties involved in coping with community objections to major development would be incapable of resolution.
That is almost certainly true – a fault line in the idea of planning that on the one hand can deliver all the buildings we need in the right places, and on the other can do so without offending voting communities. More consultation for speedier
Paul Finch is programme director of the World Festival of Architecture and joint publishing editor of Planning in London
RIGHT:
Welwyn Garden City: Those were the days
planning, ha ha. In the end we are mostly Nimbys. Planning is supposed to hold a balance between private and collective community interest, and the interests of developers and housebuilders. The last government caved in disastrously in favour of the former, and have a paid a political price which allowed Labour to represent itself as the party of housebuilders – a dubious claim likely to be exposed over the next five years
It was all so different, at least in respect of housing, in the 50s, 60s and 70s. The idea of development control was scarcely in evidence as far as both public and private housing was concerned. It was a golden age for delivery, under both Conservative and Labour governments. And during the early part of that period housing was the responsibility of the Ministry of Health, which is perhaps where it should have stayed.
At that time, bipartisan opposition to development was reserved for commercial and industrial buildings. Development control of the building licence genre continued to operate. Any significant workplace building required an Office Development Permit or an Industrial Development Certificate, as well as planning permission.
Making fortunes
This sort of restriction produced a property industry that could make fortunes because of the artificial restriction on development, with architects like Colonel Seifert prized for their apparent magical abilities to obtain both permits and permissions, which became a licence to print money and the source for anti-development sentiment which exists to this day. Then, it was the occupation of Centre Point by protestors angry at alleged profiteering in a time of housing shortage. Today, look at the luvvy chorus which tried to stop a perfectly good redevelopment of the Marks and Spencer store on Oxford Street, approved by Rayner after a tortous planning and legal saga, where it became increasingly apparent that a retrofit of the
existing building was not a rational strategy.
The deputy prime minister has shown herself perfectly capable of doing something useful for planning, if slightly unexpected, in removing the words ‘beauty’ and ‘beautiful’ from the National Planning Policy Framework. Far from endorsing the world-view of the oleaginous Nicholas Boys-Smith, she has knocked it on the head, along with the ineffective Office for Place. If she is prepared to deal with nonsense in such a straightforward way, then perhaps there is hope that planning simplification will reap benefits.
The M&S saga
The M&S saga is a good example of why the planning system gets a bad name. A proposal by a world-renowned FTSE 100 company, for the redevelopment of its own property, is given planning permission by the Conservative local authority, Westminster, is supported by the Labour Mayor of London, and upheld in robust terms by the inspector who conducted the public inquiry. That unnecessary inquiry was called by the late and very unlamented secretary of state, Michael Gove, the man who scrapped local housing targets – to the benefit of the Labour Party which has re-introduced them. The strange electoral death of the Conservative Party is partly explained, amazingly, by the abandonment of the idea that we should build homes. Much good it did them.
The point about M&S is that, if you cannot rely on the unanimous support of a local authority, regional authority and planning inspector, after vast expenditure on your part, can you say the planning system is working? No wonder M&S went to court, triumphantly winning five of its six claims as to why Gove was wrong. Yet the ultimate decision on the application reverted to the Secretary of State.
ABOVE:
It is the courts which have also being called on in respect of the Mitsubishi development of the former London Weekend >>>
Oxford Street: Angela Rayner finally sorted out a messy planning saga Pilbrow & Partners
120-home development proposed for Guildford Cathedral by JTP architects
Television Tower on the South Bank. Again, the local authority, the mayor and a planning inspector all decided in favour of the development. Even Michael Gove could find no reason to reverse the inspector’s decision. Yet one semi-local objector was able to use judicial review procedures, almost exclusively paid for by you and me, to challenge the approval. It will cost the client an extraordinary amount of money just to fight the court case, but there is no moral hazard for person bring the action. It is an abuse of the system, an enemy of growth, and evidence to a key trading partner that the UK planning system is a lottery.
By Guildford Cathedral, I recently gave evidence in favour of a 120-home development proposed by Guildford Cathedral, in partnership with a social housing provider, on its own land. Three small sites were the subject of careful design, and a planning consultation process which took four years. Guildford Council proceeded to ignore the advice of its own design officer to approve the development, subject to minor amendment, and instead brought in an outside ‘expert’ to rubbish the designs at a public inquiry. A heritage expert on views was trundled out to say everything would be ruined, but then they always do.
Sad to say we lost the appeal, and a review of next steps is under way. The affordable element of the project was 46 per cent, by the way, and included 12 homes for people who work at the cathedral. The cathedral was counting on income from the development helping to fund much-needed repair and maintenance work on its fabric and landscape. What a triumph for planning.
The really big stuff
Zooming out, how is planning dealing with the really big stuff? There are success stories. The Elizabeth Line. The new Bakerloo Line station at Paddington, planning gain from the Sellar Group’s Renzo Piano Cube office building. Marmite buildings they may be, but the regeneration of Battersea Power Station and its Nine Elms neighbour is proceeding apace. Brent Cross (Crosstown) is happening. Canary Wharf is reinventing itself. Nigel Hugill is delivering a big residential settlement in Cambridgeshire. Some local authorities are actually delivering new homes, though one should be careful about the numbers quoted in estate regeneration projects:
the net additional is sometimes pathetically low.
But there are also some big disasters. The HS2 shambles began with the focus on the wrong end of the issue: it was the TransPennine routes that needed creating or upgrading, starting with a proper line between Liverpool and Manchester, which should have been a priority, not marginally faster journey times from Euston to Birmingham.
The long-running farce of Heathrow expansion all stems from a gigantic loss of nerve in the early 1970s, when the great estuary project at Maplin Sands – which actually had planning permission – was abandoned because Harold Wilson’s government gave into Nimbys and posh objectors like the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Birds of course, are much smarter than the aristos who littered the top echelons of the RSPB; they know how to move on quickly.
We should have had that new airport by the turn of the Millennium, and a bullet train connection into central London, rivalling similar developments in Tokyo and Hong Kong. ‘Without leaps of imagination, or dreaming, we lose the excitement of possibilities. Dreaming, after all, is a form of planning’, said Gloria Steinem, who might have been talking about this project, the brainchild of former RIBA President Fred Pooley, an East Ham lad, who was the last ranking architect to work for the Greater London Council or its successor – not as an architect, but as director for planning and transportation. He fully understood the benefit to London of a properly located modern airport.
On the airport front
Today, the recent big news on the airport front was the decision to allow a 40 per cent increase in flights from London City Airport, which for decades did not even have a public transport connection. Angela Rayner over-ruled Newham Council and the Mayor of London (both Labour), thereby encouraging airlines to subject East Enders to even more noise and pollution than they already have to endure – or should that read ‘supporting Labour’s growth initiative’, or should it read ‘ignoring Ed Miliband’s views about aviation’. Take your pick!
The one certainty is that the biggest enemy of growth, as far as planning is concerned, is uncertainty. Planning risk is more significant than finance or the state of the market. It is the reason the design of projects is started, delayed, or abandoned.
Of course the reason for delay is not the system itself, which in essence is what was created in 1947. The underlying reason is decisions by politicians, sometimes made through incompetence, but as far as one can tell never as the result of malice (compare and contrast the deadly combination of those factors in the way London’s road and bridge system has been wrecked). The endless imposition of new policies, guidance and aspirations has overloaded the relative simplicity of that 1947 act.
One thing politicians get wrong is the imposition into planning law of some pet theme they have been persuaded is essential – the beauty nonsense was one of them. More seriously, planning has recently become the place where officers with scant experience of, for example, fire design or carbon analysis or biodiversity, have found themselves having to deal with planning application incorporating reams of documents on both those subjects. I have every sympathy for them. Anything
that is outside the scope of spatial planning should surely be dealt with by building control.
And it was politicians who allowed, then encouraged, the rise and rise of what Ken Livingstone called the ‘heritage Taliban’, an over- the-top description but you know what he meant.
One had to admire, even while despising them for it, the way English Heritage and its successor body Historic England, conned ministers and civil servants into accepting a doctrine that any new building, located in or near a conservation area/listed building/world heritage site, automatically does harm, irrespective of its quality. Designs are guilty unless someone can show they are innocent – a dishonest intellectual context. This leads to the madness of phrases like ‘a low to moderate degree of less than substantial harm’. I have said at inquiry that I would only agree with such an assessment in the sense that the development in question did no harm whatsoever, and in fact contributed positively to improving the existing context.
This was in relation to an appeal which we won over a modest development around Hampton Court station. The heritage brigade argued, entirely unsuccessfully, that as you came out of the station the vista of Hampton Court Palace would be wrecked by unsightly intrusion of new development. In reality what you see and would continue to see is nothing to do with the palace, but is in fact the busy road bridge designed by Lutyens in the 1930s.
The fibs they tell about housing.
Finally back to those politicians and the fibs they tell about housing. First the fantasy figure of 300,000 homes a year, last achieved in 1977 when there were four sources of supply: private housebuilders then as now, housing associations, then as now, local authorities, and new towns. Local authority providers are now producing very few net additional homes and of course we have no new towns. (Labour say they are going to create them; I am not holding my breath, any more than I did when Eco-towns were all the trend. Can anyone name one that was built? Neither can I).
If you remove two out of four suppliers in a market, it is scarcely surprising that you get a shortage of product. That is the reason for the 40-year-plus housing ‘crisis’: It is not the fault of the planning system or building regulations. It is not land-hoard-
ing by housebuilders, a hoary myth discredited by various independent investigations into the subject. It is not heritage objections. It is not even council house sales, which one might regard as a redistribution of wealth programme, and therefore hated by the Labour Party with a vengeance. Mrs Thatcher never understood property or construction, and her failure to build replacement homes for those sold was wrong in principle and disastrous in practice. But Labour did nothing about it when subsequently in power.
The decision by the political class to rely increasingly on the private sector to build a social housing programme was doomed from the start, since it penalises the people actually providing what used to be thought of as a social good. If we treated bakers in the same way as housebuilders, with a demand for 40 per cent ‘affordable’ loaves there would soon be a bread shortage. We have a housing shortage.
So what is the solution to this most pressing of problems? My simple, and perhaps simplistic view: adopt the model of the Singapore Housing Development Board, which has built millions of homes since independence in 1965. It is a substantial owner of public land. It has planning and cpo powers. It has budget. It procures designs and construction; 80 per cent of Singapore citizens live in its products. It never stops building.
Could we do that here? Of course. At micro scale, the Olympic Delivery Authority delivered the biggest housing development in London for decades. At a national scale, we have Homes England, which has plenty of powers and finance. Can it be given a new sense of direction, authority and delivery budget? Can it procure housing in significant quantities instead of fiddling about doing land swaps and acting as a conduit for inadequate Whitehall funding? That will be a big political decision, but if we don’t think big, nothing significant is going to happen. It is all very well getting local planning authorities to restore their land supply targets, but it doesn’t mean anything actually gets built.
That is not a planning failure in the sense of town and country planning – but it is a failure to have a plan to ensure that our ever-expanding population, 2.2 million net additional over the last recorded three-year period, can live in housing which if not beautiful, is certainly decent.
If the planning system fails to help deliver such an initiative, it will surely continue to lose its appeal. n
ABOVE: The courts finally approved the Mitsubishi/Make South Bank development, which cost the client tens of millions of pounds in delays
Revitalising high streets is not just about boosting economic activity—it is also about restoring their role as centres of community life, say Anna Iceton and Rebecca Chaplin
Anna Iceton is a partner on the real estate disputes team and Rebecca Chaplin partner on the insolvency and restructuring team at top-100 law firm Moore Barlow
Revitalising high streets: legal insights and the path forward
High streets have long been at the heart of communities, serving as hubs for commerce, social interaction, and local identity. Yet, over the past decade, their vibrancy has been increasingly overshadowed by changing consumer habits, economic pressures, and the rise of e-commerce. Shopping centres and high streets alike are grappling with persistent vacancies and declining footfall.
However, success stories like Oxford Street, where footfall increased 12% year on year in 2023, and retail sales reached £3.1 billion in 2023, representing 35% of all West End sales, suggest that a strategic and collaborative approach could breathe new life into these spaces. As legal frameworks such as the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 empower councils to take action, the role of landlords, councils, and legal professionals in shaping this transformation is more crucial than ever.
Understanding the challenge
The retail landscape has faced sustained difficulties. Shopping centres, in particular, have been disproportionately affected, with a quarter reporting vacancy rates exceeding 10%. Within these centres, 7.2% of units have been unoccupied for over three years. High streets fare somewhat better, with 10% reporting similar vacancy levels, but the problem of long-term vacancies persists. Data shows that 32.8% of empty high street units have remained unoccupied for more than three years, reflecting structural challenges that inhibit recovery.
Economic pressures on retailers have exacerbated these trends. In 2023, 62 retail businesses failed, the highest number since records began in 2007. Yet, this resulted in fewer store closures (971) compared to the peak of the pandemic in 2020, when 5214 shops closed as a result of 54 businesses failing. This suggests an evolving retail landscape where businesses that survive are adapting to new market conditions. Still, the persistence of long-term vacancies highlights the difficulty of repurposing spaces that no longer align with consumer needs or landlord strategies.
Retailers are already showing signs of strain as insolvencies rise, with pre-Christmas closures hinting at deeper troubles to come. Historically, post-Christmas has been a peak period for retail and hospitality insolvencies as businesses assess their holiday performance and navigate the quieter months of the new year.
The recent Budget has introduced further challenges, including increases in National Insurance contributions and potential changes to zero-hours contracts. These measures add significant
costs to sectors already grappling with rising energy prices, supply chain issues, and the demand for higher wages. For retailers and hospitality businesses, the cumulative effect of these pressures is like fighting fires on multiple fronts. Unless mitigated by targeted government support or operational efficiencies, these additional burdens could lead to a surge in closures throughout 2025, further reshaping the high street landscape.
Lessons from Oxford Street
Oxford Street stands out as something of a new beacon of revitalisation in an otherwise challenging landscape. Once emblematic of retail decline, it has seemingly reversed its fortunes, with vacancy rates falling from 15.6% to 9.3% in just one year. Projections indicate that this figure could drop further to 1.8% by the end of 2024, a level not seen since 2019. The resurgence is attributed to a blend of strategic interventions, including attracting global retailers like Uniqlo and Ikea as well as niche brands like CANVVS, a sneaker customisation brand loved by Ed Sheeran. These brands have taken over large-format spaces previously occupied by Topshop and Debenhams, demonstrating how targeted investment and tenant diversity can drive recovery.
This transformation is also underpinned by a shift in the role of retail spaces. Oxford Street has embraced the trend of mixed-use developments, integrating retail with leisure, dining, and cultural activities. By prioritising experiences that cannot be replicated online, the area has reasserted itself as a destination for consumers. Landmark examples include Selfridges, which integrates cultural programming and social spaces like its cinema and event lounge, alongside its traditional retail offerings. HMV’s revamped flagship combines in-store gigs and pop culture showcases, while IKEA’s new central London store focuses on interactive displays and design inspiration. The former House of Fraser flagship store at 318 Oxford Street is undergoing a £132 million refurbishment to transform the historic 1930s art deco building into a mixed-use development. The project, scheduled for completion in 2025, will feature ground-floor retail spaces, offices from the first to seventh floors, two restaurants, a gym with a 25-metre swimming pool, and a rooftop terrace offering panoramic views of London. These innovations make Oxford Street a destination where visitors can work, shop, dine, and play, creating an emotional connection with the space and extending their dwell time. The success of this strategy underscores the importance of flexibility and innovation in property management, offering valuable lessons for landlords and councils across the UK.
The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023
The introduction of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 (the Act) offers a significant opportunity to address the persistent issue of long-term vacancies. From December 2024, local authorities will have the power to auction vacant high street properties for lease, targeting units that have been empty for an extended period. This initiative aims to lower rents, attract new tenants, and revitalise struggling high streets by repurposing underutilised spaces.
For landlords, the Act represents both an opportunity and a challenge. On one hand, it provides a mechanism to bring dormant properties back into use, potentially driving economic activity in surrounding areas. However, it also introduces a new layer of oversight (lack of control), with councils able to intervene in property management decisions which may not be welcomed by all. Landlords must navigate these changes carefully, ensuring that their property rights are respected while adapting to a more collaborative approach and councils will no doubt tread carefully in the initial exercise of these rights.
Local authorities, meanwhile, face their own set of challenges. While the powers granted by the Act are significant, their effective implementation requires resources and expertise. With council deficits projected to exceed £8.5 billion in the coming year, many authorities may struggle to fully utilise these new tools. Without adequate funding, the initiative risks being underutilised, leaving high streets in limbo and frustrations mounting.
Legal professionals will play a crucial role in this evolving landscape. Lawyers specialising in property and planning law will need to guide landlords, councils, and tenants through the processes and implications of the Act. This includes advising on the auction process, drafting lease agreements, and addressing potential disputes. Ensuring compliance with the legal framework while balancing the interests of all stakeholders will be key to the success of this initiative otherwise it will just become another power gathering dust.
A blueprint for
high street revitalisation
The challenges facing high streets are not new. In 2011, the Mary Portas Review provided a comprehensive roadmap for transforming town centres. The review called for high streets to be reimagined as vibrant social hubs that combine shopping, learning, and leisure. It emphasised the importance of collaboration between landlords, councils, and communities, recommending measures such as improved town centre management, reduced business rates, and innovative uses for vacant spaces.
Many of these principles remain relevant today. Oxford Street’s recovery mirrors several of the Portas recommendations, including targeted investment, strategic tenant mixes, and
a focus on creating dynamic, experience-driven environments. However, replicating this success on a national scale requires a coordinated effort that addresses the structural barriers to high street renewal.
One such barrier is the complexity of the planning process. Streamlining planning regulations is essential to enable landlords and councils to adapt quickly to changing market demands. The integration of mixed-use developments—combining retail, office, residential, and leisure spaces—requires a flexible approach that balances the interests of all stakeholders while meeting environmental and community standards.
Business rates also remain a significant burden for many retailers and rates holidays only go so far. Reviewing the system to better support small businesses and independent retailers could help create a more level playing field. This would not only reduce the financial strain on tenants but also incentivise landlords to attract a diverse range of occupiers.
Another critical factor is the role of landlords. The Portas Review highlighted the need for landlords to take a more active role in high street management. This includes addressing longterm vacancies through creative solutions such as pop-up stores, community spaces, and short-term leases. We’re seeing more and more variety in the kinds of shops on Oxford Street –
ABOVE and NEXT PAGE: Images of Oxford Street
it’s not just souvenir or candy shops these days.
Empowering local authorities to intervene when landlords neglect their responsibilities, as outlined in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, is a step in the right direction. However, collaboration between landlords and councils will be essential to ensure these measures are implemented effectively.
Balancing economic and community goals
Revitalising high streets is not just about boosting economic activity—it is also about restoring their role as centres of community life. Mary Portas described high streets as “lively, dynamic, exciting, and social places that give a sense of belonging and trust to a community.” This vision underscores the importance of balancing commercial goals with social outcomes.
Oxford Street’s transformation demonstrates that economic and community goals are not mutually exclusive. By creating spaces that combine retail with leisure, culture, and social interaction, the area has attracted a diverse audience and reinvigorated its identity as a destination. High streets across the UK can draw inspiration from this model, tailoring their strategies to reflect local needs and opportunities.
The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act provides a framework for achieving this balance. By giving communities a greater say in the future of their high streets, the Act encourages innovative uses of vacant spaces that align with local priorities. This could include converting empty units into co-working spaces, cultural venues, or facilities for health and wellbeing. The integration of these elements into high streets can create a sense of ownership and engagement among residents, fostering stronger, more resilient communities.
The path forward
The revitalisation of high streets requires a collective effort
from landlords, councils, businesses, and legal professionals. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act offers a valuable starting point, but its success will depend on how effectively it is implemented and supported and/or landlords taking a broader and strategic reviews of their own assets before the Act “bites”. Simplifying planning processes, reducing business rates, and providing financial resources to local authorities are critical steps in ensuring the initiative delivers meaningful outcomes but local authorities do need to be mindful that they do not alienate landlords who are clearly critical players in this.
Landlords will hopefully see this as an opportunity to reconsider their assets and property management in a way that embraces flexibility and innovation. If they embrace the opportunity and seek to collaborate with councils and tenants, they could be true innovators and create spaces that meet modern consumer demands and contribute to the long-term success of high streets. Legal professionals will play a pivotal role in navigating the complexities of this transformation. From advising on compliance with legislation to mediating disputes, their expertise will be essential in ensuring that the interests of all stakeholders are balanced and protected but also picking up the pieces if there are business that cannot be saved.
Revitalising high streets is not just a commercial challenge—it is an opportunity to reimagine their role as vibrant centres of community life. As Oxford Street has shown, with the right strategies and a commitment to collaboration, high streets can overcome even the most significant challenges. The Act together with other changes that have been promised by the new government, represents a crucial piece of the puzzle, offering a pathway to renewal that balances economic, social, and legal considerations. By embracing this vision, the UK’s high streets can once again become thriving, dynamic spaces that reflect the best of what our communities have to offer. n
The Grey Belt – a soundbite in need of a policy?
Green Belt review should be seen a part of a wider strategy to bolster housing supply, says Ian Barnett
The 'grey belt' works well as a slogan: it’s simple and concise, visual and intriguing. As intended, it immediately evokes images of unattractive scraps of land which would benefit from redevelopment. As such, it both questions the validity of the Green Belt and suggests a solution to the housing crisis – again, just as the government intended.
Defining the Grey Belt
The government asserted that the Grey Belt would be, ‘A new class of land to ensure grey and poor-quality parts of the Green Belt are prioritised, and that any development benefits local communities’ also that, ‘Poor-quality and ugly areas of the Green Belt should be clearly prioritised over nature-rich, environmentally valuable land’.
However, even despite some clarification following the publication of the revised NPPF in December, the definition of the Grey Belt lacks clarity, an evidence base or wide-ranging support.
Ian Barnett is National Land Director, Leaders Romans Group
The revised NPPF defines Grey Belt land and land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to three of the purposes of including land within the Green Belt, namely a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas, b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another or c) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns. In addition, the Grey Belt designation does not apply to land covered by footnote 7 e.g. an SSSI, National Park or a National Landscape (formerly AONB). The final definition is more flexible than that consulted on in the draft NPPF and so has the potential to be relevant to a relatively large number of sites.
So the definition of the Grey Belt deviates from the very pur-
pose of the Green Belt which was all about the ‘preservation of openness’ and not how ‘ugly’ or what ‘quality’ the land is. Indeed those familiar with Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 will recall its requirement that, ‘Boundaries should not be amended or development allowed merely because the land has become derelict’. It has even been suggested that the Grey Belt makes light of the Green Belt as a serious cultural definition (to paraphrase the TCPA) or more specifically, ‘a political idea being retrofitted into public policy’. The idea is that the new definition of the Grey Belt should allow sustainable sites to be brought forward ahead of local plan reviews, freeing up land for housing sooner than would otherwise be possible.
However, the definition of the Grey Belt lacks clarity, an evidence base or wide-ranging support. It deviates from the very purpose of the Green Belt which was all about the ‘preservation of openness’ and not how ‘ugly’ or what ‘quality’ the land is. Indeed those familiar with Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 will recall its requirement that, ‘Boundaries should not be amended or development allowed merely because the land has become derelict’. It has even been suggested that the Grey Belt makes light of the Green Belt as a serious cultural definition (to paraphrase the TCPA) or more specifically, ‘a political idea being retrofitted into public policy’. The idea is that the new definition of the Grey Belt should allow sustainable sites to be brought forward ahead of local plan reviews, freeing up land for housing sooner than would otherwise be possible.
However, the identification of land as having limited ability to meet the definition of the Green Belt has been recognised previously: Green Belt that makes a limited contribution has been referred as ‘poorly performing Green Belt’ or ‘low quality Green
Belt’. Is this little more than a new label? More to the point, will Grey Belt land become a permanent designation or a temporary one, for as soon as Grey Belt land becomes built upon, it then presumably it is no longer Grey Belt?
Existing policy position
The process by which a local planning authority (LPA) can remove land from the Green Belt already existed before December’s NPPF was published, and brownfield land (including that which occurs within the Green Belt) is not ‘untouchable’ as might be believed. Currently if available brownfield sites within an urban area have been used up, densities have been optimised and the Duty to Cooperate fails to produce adequate alternatives, changes to the Green Belt boundary can take place and brownfield sites within the Green Belt are likely to be at the top of the list of suitable sites – notwithstanding the other challenges that developing brownfield land raises. Currently sites within the Green Belt can only be de-designated where there are ‘exceptional circumstances’, which are ‘fully evidenced and justified [...] through the plan-making process’.
The ‘golden rules’
For development to be considered appropriate it would need to comply with the Government’s ‘Golden Rules’.
The golden rules are as follows:
a. affordable housing which reflects either: development plan policies produced in accordance with the NPPF (ie, 15 percentage points above the highest existing affordable housing requirement which would otherwise apply to the development, subject to a cap of 50%)
b. necessary improvements to local or national infrastructure
c. the provision of new, or improvements to existing, green spaces that are accessible to the public. New residents should be able to access good quality green spaces within a short walk of their home, whether through onsite provision or through access to offsite spaces.
The most significant on these, from a development viability perspective, is that all new residential development would be expected to deliver an additional 15% affordable over and above that currently sought by existing affordable housing
policy (capped at 50%).
The earlier draft of the NPPF had stated that a blanket 50% affordable housing requirement would be made of any new housing development in the Green Belt. When the revised version was published in December there was some relief that this requirement had been modified. These modifications appear to address concerns raised during the consultation period among the development industry, principally around the working of the Government’s previous benchmark land value (BLV) and the potential it had to disincentivise the release of land for development.
In addition, there is a clear objective that proposed affordable housing includes provision of socially rented properties with multiple references to this form of housing within the NPPF. Housing for social rent typically generates less value than other forms of affordable housing and so coupled with the requirement to deliver a greater proportion of affordable housing could have viability implications in parts of the country where values are more marginal.
The Government has stated an intention to review Viability Guidance to consider whether there are circumstances in which site-specific viability assessment may be taken into account. Until this takes place the Guidance states that site specific viability assessments should not be undertaken for the purpose of reducing affordable housing provision. It is clear therefore that at least in the interim these targets are expected to be met in full. into account look likely to change.
The Built Environment Committee inquiry
In September, the Built Environment Committee launched an inquiry to, ‘Gain a better understanding of what Grey Belt land is, how it can contribute to housing targets and what sustainable Grey Belt development looks like’ – suggesting a possible lack of research prior to the policy being formulated. The committee, which is yet to publish a report, is considering will consider the Government’s proposed golden rules of the sequential test for land release, as well as the requirements for the delivery of affordable housing provision, infrastructure and enhanced green spaces and how they may affect the success of developments in the Grey Belt.
The HPF, in its response to the inquiry, provides a suggested definition of the Grey Belt and berates the lack of objectivity in the scant description that has been provided do date. The RTPI suggests that the introduction of the Grey Belt could result in the courts being ‘bogged down’ in appeals and could result in ‘homes gaining consent in areas that are not sustainable’. Concerns have also been raised about whether the type of sites identified by the government (disused petrol stations, quarries and scrap heaps) are the best locations for new housing as they tend to be relatively small and not necessarily well served by proptech or community infrastructure.
The need for change
There is no question that something needs to change to enable adequate levels of future development. The new government has set itself the tough challenge of delivering 1.5 million homes this Parliament and its capacity to do so is not helped by the fact that the amount of land in England designated as Green Belt has actually increased by around 1.7% for the past two years (2021-22 and 2022-23). This is the result of large new Green Belt allocations having been more than offset by areas now allocated for housing. The Green Belt now covers 1,638,420 hectares (12.6% of England’s land mass). To put this in context, London’s Green Belt is now more than three times the size of Greater London itself and twice that of Luxembourg.
The need for a review of the Green Belt
My view is that a fundamental review of the Green Belt, declassifying and reclassifying land as necessary, is a key part of the solution to deliver the government’s housing targets in a sustainable manner.
We must move away from a ‘Green Belt review’ being akin to ‘concreting all over the Green Belt’. The idea that housing developments are all tarmac and no trees may have been true of post-war development when the Green Belt was introduced, but is not today. As a result of changes in approaches to development today, new communities have the potential to be attractive, primarily ‘green’ spaces which significantly boost both the aesthetic and biodiverse qualities of the land.
A sensible conversation about the Green Belt is overdue. Michael Gove (remember him?) referred to it, wrongly, as a landscape designation. More recently the excitement around old petrol stations and quarries having potential to overcome the housing crisis shows the widespread ignorance about what the Green Belt is and what its purpose is. Many consider that the Green Belt is a bucolic ring of verdant countryside open to all, whereas in reality much of it is inaccessible and/or preserves and protects unattractive edge-of-settlement brownfield sites – those which have significant potential for sustainable development.
We have seen so many changes since the Green Belt was first introduced, including the New Towns programmes of the 1960s and 1970s – for example, places like Milton Keynes, Basingstoke and Crawley were villages when the Green Belt was first introduced.
It is imperative that the Green Belt is reviewed in order to deliver enough homes in the right places and protect land that deserves to be protected. But because development is so sensitive, so complex and has so much scope for subjectivity, a review of the Green Belt can only be delivered though a national or at least a strategic regional plan, led by the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government. The Green Belt began as a national policy and must remain as such.
Alternatives to the Grey Belt
It is important to note that a review of the Green Belt does not necessary mean a reduction in the Green Belt, which is how it is often presented. It means that that areas worthy of Green Belt status are included and those which don’t fulfil the purposes of the Green Belt are excluded. Smaller individual sites as the car parks, petrol stations and quarries could be repurposed, and quite possibly in such a way that increases their aesthetic value. Including such sites in the debate around Grey Belt confuses the subject with brownfield or ‘Previously Developed Land’. There is already (and has been for a long time) a presumption in favour of development of such site –also known as a ‘brownfield first policy’ – that is not new.
To gain political and public support, any changes to the Green Belt, whether describing that reallocated land as Grey Belt or not, needs to be reframed on the basis of expansion. Since 1955 when the Green Belt was introduced, the UK population has grown from 51,063,902 to 68,497,907. The housing crisis demonstrates a desperate need for sustainable new settlements and we have a raft of landscape and ecological designations (National Landscapes, Special Protection Areas, National Parks SSSIs etc) and buffers to ensure that this is done sensitively. We need to move away from the idea that there’s something intrinsically unattractive about development: a well-designed development, in sympathetic landscaped surroundings can benefit the natural environment, rather than detract from it.
I believe that Keir Starmer is very much on the right track in accepting that the Green Belt must be reviewed to address the housing crisis, and this will invariably require some land within the Green Belt – land which doesn’t meet the Green Belt’s original purposes - to be released and made available for development.
It is possible to expand the Green Belt overall, while also delivering more homes - but a strategic approach is the only way in which this can be achieved and furthermore, Green Belt review should be seen a part of a wider strategy to bolster housing supply and not the only means of doing so. n
Now is the time for all of us to work together to create cities that truly work for everyone, says Mei-Yee Man Oram RIGHT: Download the report from here: https://tinyurl.com/4tmubf ne
Designing cities for women and girls
Recent statistics paint a concerning picture of women's safety in the UK. Just one in 20 girls feel completely safe in public places, and violence against women on UK trains has risen by 50% in just two years. It's clear that we, as a society, are not doing enough to protect women and girls in public spaces and to make spaces inclusive for all. Working on access and inclusive environments at Arup, I've spent nearly two decades evaluating the built environment's accessibility and inclusivity. These figures aren't just numbers; they represent real fears and experiences that limit women's freedom and access to public areas.
While improved policing and criminal justice responses are crucial as part of this problem, I believe we need to look beyond these measures alone. We need a holistic approach that addresses every possible aspect causing women (and other marginalised groups) to feel unsafe, including the way we design and plan our cities.
For too long, the role that the built environment plays in the safety and inclusion of women has been a secondary concern. Gender biases are deeply embedded in the traditional practice of urban design and planning (from the data informing design, to voices heard at decision making for projects). This has led to the creation of spaces that often fail to meet the needs of women and girls, who make up over half of our population.
Across London, women are nearly twice as likely as men to list personal safety as a barrier to walking, cycling, and using public transport. Sexual harassment remains one of the most common concerns. These issues stem from a built environment that has been primarily designed with men in mind, exacerbating unequal power dynamics that lead to unequal societies.
The handbook: ‘Creating Places
That Work for Women and Girls’
To address this critical issue, the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) and Arup have launched a handbook to equip developers and planners to be more inclusive: "Creating Places That Work for Women and Girls." This comprehensive guide provides practical steps for urban planners, developers, architects, and other stakeholders to ensure a genderinformed approach in the planning, design, and decision-making process of urban development.
The handbook is the result of extensive research and consultation, directly informed by the lived experiences of local women and girls. It demonstrates how gender biases infiltrate traditional urban design practices and provides a framework for addressing these biases at every stage of the process – from the inception of a project through to its delivery and long-term management.
The handbook offers several key recommendations. These include:
1. Establishing clear organisational commitments for implementing gender-inclusive processes in all projects and decisions.
2. Adopting mechanisms and governance frameworks to ensure the continuity and effective delivery of these commitments.
3. Basing decisions, strategies, and designs on a genuine understanding of women's and girls' lived experiences through participatory-led approaches.
4. Adopting a holistic approach with cross-boundary and cross-sector collaboration.
5. Measuring impact and successes to identify lessons learned, patterns, emerging trends, and good precedents.
While implementing these changes in isolation cannot remove the threat of sexual harassment, they can work in tandem with the police force and community initiatives to build a world that is safer for, and therefore more accessible to, women and girls.
To create this handbook and list, the LLDC and Arup worked to ensure that those with lived experience were consulted and involved at every stage.
Participatory design
One of the most crucial aspects of this approach is the emphasis on participatory design. The handbook outlines planning processes that ensure the lived experiences of women and girls are directly incorporated into decision-mak-
Mei-Yee Man Oram is Access and Inclusive Environments Operational Lead, Arup
ing and development. This includes methods such as exploratory walks, co-design, and 'co-clienting' - a new technique developed to address issues where traditional co-design methods were insufficient. This meant that LLDC team members worked with a ‘co-client team’ comprised of seven young women aged 17-23 years old to develop a design brief. As the project progressed through design development, the co-client team continued to influence the project and test the implementation of the design brief.
This participatory approach is not without its challenges. Our engagement highlighted key barriers preventing women from participating, such as time poverty, the sensitivity of the topic, financial limitations, and childcare responsibilities. To address these, we've recommended improvements to the participation process, including financial compensation, working with professionals like sociologists, allowing significant time for recruitment, and addressing common conditioning issues.
Implementing change at scale
A crucial insight from our work is that real change won't happen until gender-informed design becomes mandatory through planning policy. If it's not a planning policy requirement, the incentive to include it into project briefs may not be there, and it’s unlikely to become mainstream.
Local authorities are often responsive, with a strong desire to improve safety for their constituents, but can resist change due to a presumption that it will place a significant burden on cost or
resources. However, the primary need to implement these changes is not necessarily funding, but rather giving priority to this issue and taking the time to set up internal processes to ensure that safety considerations are built into the design of urban areas from the get-go.
The LLDC has done the heavy lifting in terms of research, and has now made the report public to allow other councils to replicate these processes and successes. The main cost to making changes is the human resource needed in taking the time to implement these approaches at scale.
Wider impact
By adopting gender-inclusive urban design principles, built environment professionals can play a crucial role in addressing gender inequality. This approach can help to instate fair access to services and opportunities, advancing the socio-economic mobility of women and girls. Moreover, it reveals the full potential of our cities and individual developments to creatively address other critical issues in the future, such as climate change mitigation, sustainable development and economic growth.
Designing spaces that work for women and girls will lead to a safer public realm for everyone. It's important to note, however, that we're not claiming to create completely safe places, as human behaviour can't be entirely controlled through design. Instead, this work must be viewed as part of a wider effort to address gender inequalities, including educational initiatives on >>>
societal behaviour and effective policing.
An excellent example of putting these principles into practice is the Red Path project. Red Path is an important pedestrian and cycling path in Hackney Wick, which has been neglected and under-maintained for decades. By putting local young people at the centre of planning its improvement, the Red Path project aims to show what community-led urban transformation can achieve.
This initiative provided an opportunity to pilot some of the recommendations and methodologies outlined in the handbook with local communities, exploring the intersectionality between different protected characteristics, such as people from a global ethnic majority background, and how these experiences impact design needs.
Arup provided pro-bono support to this project, bringing together various stakeholders to make it a success. This initiative demonstrates that solutions do exist, and that implementing gender-informed design is not an insurmountable challenge.
The way forward
The LLDC has set an example by forming a Women and Girls Safety Project Board, a cross-departmental group that holds the organisation accountable for progressing these initiatives. This approach, which includes male allyship, has proven effec-
tive and could serve as a model for other local authorities.
As we move forward, it's crucial that these principles are embedded at council and government level to enforce the recommendations. However, in the interim, forward-thinking developers and designers can start integrating these recommendations into their work.
To that effect, the handbook provides a framework not just for local authorities but also for developers, allowing stakeholders to take concrete steps towards gender-informed design while keeping in line with policy requirements. At Arup, we're seeing an increased appetite from clients to integrate these recommendations, demonstrating a willingness to be involved and showcase that solutions do exist.
The systemic violence and inequality faced by women and girls will not be fixed overnight. A safe and inclusive built environment, an effective policing and justice system, as well as comprehensive training and education are all crucial parts of the puzzle. If we take a holistic approach, we have the power to shift the dial towards making safer public spaces for all. While this handbook represents a significant step forward, it’s merely the beginning. Now is the time for all of us - planners, developers, policymakers, and citizens - to work together to create cities that truly work for everyone. Only then can we hope to build a more equal, safer and ultimately better world for all. n
Diagrams are from the report
Councillor
Kieron Williams, Leader of Southwark Council Introduces ‘Building Southwark Architecture & Regeneration in a London Borough’ by Kenneth Powell
Merrell £35
The architectural renaissance of Southwark
The spaces around us have a profound impact on our lives. Our homes, schools, workplaces and public spaces all shape us. Good design can make them healthier, more inclusive, more inspiring and more joyful, and in so doing it can transform lives. In Southwark we have for many years placed high-quality design at the heart of our approach.
On the following pages you can see some of the results: the parks, homes, workplaces and public buildings that we have shaped, and the benefits they have brought for our whole community. We’ve seen how the landmark projects that were delivered on Bankside some twenty- five years ago – including Tate Modern and the Millennium Bridge – have opened up and redefined our stretch of the Thames. They brought new life, culture, jobs and commerce, and made Southwark a global destination. Since then, good planning and architecture have transformed other neighbourhoods in our borough.
Take a walk through Burgess Park and you will see how good design can transform lives. Fourteen years ago it was a space the community had turned its back on. Today it is a true people’s park, full of people from every walk of life strolling, BMXing, fishing, barbecuing, exercising, playing or just relaxing, and with a wealth of new biodiversity and overlooked by hundreds of new council homes.
That is not the only part of our borough that has been renewed. Elephant and Castle has a new public park and leisure centre, with a new Northern line station and a new home for
London College of Communication under construction. Canada Water is also being rejuvenated, with its iconic library and dock complete with wetlands; the TEDI engineering school; another leisure centre under construction; and new housing, retail, leisure and public spaces all coming forward. The schemes featured in this book are just a few highlights of the last twenty years of development. It could easily have featured another fifty or more.
While several high-profile and prize-winning projects are included, they sit alongside others that might be less eye-catching but are every bit as important to our borough. I’m particularly proud of the schools we have built over the last two decades, from the fabulous SILS3 for inclusive learning, to the stunning Rotherhithe Primary School.
The quality of our school buildings is a vital component of a good education, lifting aspirations and improving attainment. It is those children who, given a good start in life and educated in our wonderful collection of new schools, will go on to drive the next twenty years of improvements in Southwark, London, the UK and beyond.
From the flysheet:
The architectural renaissance of Southwark that began in the 1980s continues apace throughout the borough, its impact evident from Bankside to Walworth and Peckham, and from Bermondsey to Dulwich. It has resulted in the creation of new venues for culture and leisure, the imaginative reuse of indus- >>>
trial spaces for housing, commerce and shared working, carefully designed facilities for health, care and education, and a wealth of green spaces to improve the daily lives of those working and living in the borough.
THE AUTHOR
Kenneth Powell is an architecture critic, journalist and writer. He has published widely, including books on Norman Foster, Richard Rogers and John McAslan, as well as New Architecture in Britain (2003), City Reborn (2004), New London Architecture (2005) and New London Architecture 2 (2007; with Cathy Strongman), all by Merrell. He was elected Honorary Fellow of the RIBA in 2000.
In Building Southwark: Architecture & Regeneration in a London Borough, the renowned architecture writer and critic Kenneth Powell continues the story of one of Britain’s most dynamic and successful areas of regeneration. This wide-ranging book describes more than 50 projects that have been built in Southwark in the new millennium, illustrated with photographs and plans.
Arranged according to building type, they include such wellknown landmarks as the extension to the Tate Modern, the Shard
and the redeveloped London Bridge station, as well as diverse social, residential, cultural, healthcare and education projects, from the refurbishment of King’s Reach Tower (now the Southbank Tower) to the cancer centre at Guy’s and St Thomas’ hospital and the transformation of Burgess Park.
Forthcoming projects – those under construction – are also included, among them the enormous undertaking of redeveloping Elephant and Castle town centre and the masterplan for Canada Water.
Building Southwark is a survey to inspire general readers as well as architects, urbanists and other industry professionals. It offers an invaluable record of the continued rejuvenation of this historic yet forward-thinking district. n
London of the Future is a once-in-a-century publication from the London Society. The 昀rst edition was created in 1921 and proposed such ‘radical’ ideas as a green belt around London and a tunnel that would connect London to France.
100 years later, we asked a group of experts what could and should happen to London in the coming years and the responses have included natural solutions, different scales of economy, new forms of governance, better local food production, a radical rethink of education, improved housing provision and even dabbling in arti昀cial intelligence.
Contributors include: Anna Minton, Carolyn Steel, Claire Bennie, Dame Baroness Laurence, Gillian Darley, Grafton Architects, Hugh Pearma, Indy Johar, Jude Kelly, Kat Hanna, Mark Brearley, Mark Stevenson, Neal Shasore, Roma Agrawal, Sarah Ichioka, Smith Mordak, Tony Travers and Yasmin Jones-Henry.
Planning and Environment Reference Guide
Please notify any changes immediately by e-mail to planninginlondon@mac.com with the subject ‘planning in london directory’.
London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Barking Town Hall Barking IG11 7LU 020 8215 3000
Assistant Director of Planning Victoria Geoghegan victoria.geoghegan@greewich.gov.uk 020 8921 5363
Assistant Director of Transportation
Graham Nash graham.nash@greenwich.gov.uk
London Borough of Hackney
Environment and Planning
Hackney Service Centre 1 Hillman Street E8 1DY 020 8356 8062
Chief Executive Tim Shields tim.shields@hackney.gov.uk 020 8356 3201
Assistant Director of Planning and Regulatory Services John Allen john.allen@hackney.gov.uk 020 8356 8134
Head of Spatial Planning Randall Macdonald 020 8356 8051
Director of Regeneration John Lumley john.lumley@hackney.gov.uk 020 8356 2138
London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham
Hammersmith Town Hall
Extension King Street London W6 9JU 020 8748 3020 www.lbhf.gov.uk
Chief Executive Ms Kim Dero kim.dero@lbhf.gov.uk 020 8753 3000
Head of Planning Regeneration John Finlayson john.finlayson@lbhf.gov.uk 020 8753 6740
Head of Policy & Spatial Planning Pat Cox pat.cox@lbhf.gov.uk 020 8753 5773
Head of Development Management Ellen Whitchurch ellen.whitchurch@lbhf.gov.uk 020 8753 3484
London Borough Of Haringey Level 6 River Park House 225 High Road Wood Green London N22 8HQ 020 8489 1400 www.haringey.gov.uk
Director for Housing, Regeneration & Planning Dan Hawthorn dan.hawthorn@haringey.gov.uk
Assistant Director for Planning, Building Standards and Sustainability Emma Williamson emma.williamson@haringey.gov.uk
Head of Planning Policy, Transport & Infrastructure Rob Krzyszowski rob.krzyszowski@haringey.gov.uk
Head of Development Management Dean Hermitage dean.hermitage@haringey.gov.uk
London Borough of Harrow PO Box 37 Civic Centre Station Road Harrow HA1 2UY 020 8863 5611 www.harrow.gov.uk/planning
Chief Executive Tom Whiting tom.whiting@harrow.gov.uk 020 8420 9495
Divisional Director of Planning Paul Nichols paul.nichols@harrow.gov.uk 020 8736 6149
The London Borough of Havering Town Hall Main Road Romford RM1 3BD 01708 433100 www.havering.gov.uk
Chief Executive Andrew Blake-Herbert andrew.blakeherbert@havering.gov.uk 01708 432201
Planning Control Manager Helen Oakerbee helen.oakerbee@havering.gov.uk 01708 432800
Planning and Building Control Simon Thelwell simon.thelwell@havering.gov.uk 01708 432685
Development & Transport Planning Martyn Thomas martyn.thomas@havering.gov.uk 01708 432845
London Borough of Hillingdon Civic Centre High Street Uxbridge UB8 1UW 01895 250111 www.hillingdon.gov.uk/planning
Chief Executive & Corporate Director of Administration
Ms Fran Beasley fbeasley@hillingdon.gov.uk 01895 250111
Deputy Director of Residents Services Nigel Dicker ndicker@hillingdon.gov.uk 01895 250566
Head of Planning & Enforcement James Rodger james.rodger@hillingdon.gov.uk 01895 250230
Head of Major Initiatives, Strategic Planning & Transportation Jales Tippell jales.tippell@hillingdon.gov.uk 01895 250230 London Borough Of Hounslow Civic Centre Lampton Road Hounslow TW3 4DN 020 8583 5555 www.hounslow.gov.uk/planning
The London Borough Of Waltham Forest Town Hall London E17 4JF 020 8496 3000 www.walthamforest.gov.uk
Chief Executive Martin Esom martin.esom@walthamforest.gov.uk 020 8496 3000
Strategic Director, Corporate Development Rhona Cadenhead rhona.cadenhead@walthamforest.gov.uk 020 8496 8096
Director Regeneration & Growth Lucy Shomali lucy.shomali@walthamforest.gov.uk
The London Borough of Wandsworth Town Hall Wandsworth High Street London SW18 2PU 020 8871 6000 www.wandsworth.gov.uk
Chief Executive Paul Martin paul.martin@wandsworth.gov.uk 020 8871 6001
Head of Development Permissions Nick Calder ncalder@wandsworth.gov.uk 020 8871 8417
Environment and Community Services Directorate >>>
Mark Hunter mhunter@wandsworth.gov.uk 020 8871 8418
Head of Forward Planning and Transportation
John Stone jstone@wandsworth.gov.uk 020 8871 6628
City Of Westminster Westminster City Hall 64 Victoria Street London SW1E 6QP
020 7641 6500 www.westminster.gov.uk
OTHER ORGANISATIONS
Greater London Authority City Hall
Kamal Chunchie Way London E16 1ZE
020 7983 4000 www.london.gov.uk
Sadiq Khan Mayor of London mayor@london.gov.uk 020 7983 4000
Greater London Authority
Executive Director, Good Growth Philip Graham
Assistant Director, Planning (GLA) and City Planning (TfL)
Lucinda Turner
Head of Development Management
John Finlayson
Head of the London Plan and Growth Strategies
Lisa Fairmaner lisa.fairmaner@london.gov.uk
Planning Change Manager
Peter Kemp
Chief Executive Stuart Love slove@westminster.gov.uk 020 7641 3091
Director of Planning 020 7641 2519
Head of City Policy and Strategy Barry Smith bsmith@westminster.gov.uk 020 7641 3052
Urban Design London Palestra 197 Blackfriars Road London SE1 8AA 020 7593 9000 www.urbandesignlondon.com
Planning Officers Society The Croft, 81 Walton Road, Aylesbury HP21 7SN tel: 01296 422161
Design For London City Hall
Kamal Chunchie Way, London E16 1ZE info@designforlondon.gov.uk
Keep taking your PiL
Please complete and mail the form below with cheque for £99.00 or click SUBSCRIBE at www.planninginlondon.com and pay with PayPal or credit card
China National Publications, Deloitte, Womble Bond Dickinson, Avalon Planning, L B Barnet, Gilmartinley, Harvard College Library, London Wharf PLC, L B Islington, L B Greenwich, Sport England, Entec UK, Berkeley Group, Workspace Group, LB Bexley, RBK&C, RTPI, LB Bromley, PRP Architects, Durrants, L B Islington, CBE, GL Hearn, Holistic Group, White Young Green, Dentons, i-Document Solutions, Trowers & Hamlins, Montagu Evans, Hayes Davidson, Precise Media, NLP, L B Merton, Cluttons Planning, Speechly Bircham, TP Bennett, The London Society, Ebsco, Brockton Capital, Turley Associates, Munkenbeck & Partners, Terence O'Rourke, Assael Architecture, Metropolitan Workshop, PRP, Urban Research, AMEC, GLA, LCR Stations and Property, Terence O'Rourke, Rolfe Judd Planning, Southbank University, Lurot Brand, Alliance Planning, Cluttons, DPP, Savills, Henley Business School, Grosvenor, Sainsbury's, Hamptons International, Barratt Homes, National Grid, Network Rail, Foster + Partners, Gorkana Group, London & Continental Railways, London Communications Agency, Cardiff University, L B Ealing, MHCLG, Transport for London, LSE Library, Deloitte Real Estate, London Councils, Circle 33 Housing Trust, P&O Estates Ltd, Greenwich University, Steer Davies Gleave, City of Westminster, British Architectural Library, CBRE, Delancy, PDP London, Bellway Homes, Jestico & Whiles, London & Quadrant, Ecology Consultancy Ltd, Tesco Plc, Ramboll, Dominion Properties, BWCP Architects, WSP Indigo, Slaughter and May, LSE library, British Land Company, Dentons, HTA Design, Howard Kennedy, ...
... Just some of the firms and organisations who have taken their Planning in London subscription. ONE YEAR FOR JUST £99
To subscribe: click on www.planninginlondon.com or please return this form. Bank transfer: HSBC 40-07-13 a/c 91551655 'Planning in London'. A subscription is a licence for 5 copies emailed in PDF format. Please supply up to 5 email addresses to planninginlondon@mac.com
Please notify any changes immediately by e-mail to planninginlondon@mac.com with the subject ‘planning in london directory’.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPONSOR THIS DIRECTORY? Previous sponsors were Colliers and Knight Frank. If maybe then please email editor@planninginlondon.com
Department of Levelling up, Communities and Local Government 020 7944 4400
Sarah Allan, head of design designquality@levellingup.gov.uk
Simon Gallagher, director, planning
Go to planninginlondon.com > Subscribe and pay online with
I would like to subscribe from: last issue 131 October 2024 this issue 132 January 2025 next issue
133 April 2025
I enclose a cheque for £99.00 (no VAT, payable to Planning in London) I am interested in advertising in the Advice directory (£300 for one year)
Please debit my card £106 (£99+£6.00 for credit card administration, no VAT payable)
Card type: VISA MASTERCARD
Card number:
Expiry date: security no:
Signature:
Name on card:
Firm:
Card billing address:
Delivery address if different:
Tel: XX
Up to 5 Email addresses:
Post cheque to: Planning in London, Studio Petersham, Gorshott, 181 Petersham Road TW10 7AW for the attention of Melanie Hern
This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the challenges and opportunities facing London’s office market in 2024, authored by Caroline Waldcock, Real Estate Sector Leader at Deloitte UK
Developers expect potential recovery in 2025
The report highlights the following key points: Market Challenges:
• Persistent geopolitical and economic uncertainties.
• Contractor insolvencies adding pressure on an already distressed construction sector.
• Delivery delays, with recent rates at only 45%-75% of projections.
Construction Trends:
• New Starts: 3.7 million sq. ft. across 29 office schemes, significantly boosted by life science projects at One North Quay and Tribeca-London. Without these, new start volume declined by 42% to 2.4 million sq. ft.
• Refurbishments: A 57% drop in refurbishment volumes compared to Summer 2024, though this remains a strategic option for ESG compliance and avoiding value erosion.
Life Sciences Opportunity:
• The rise of life science developments in the Docklands and King’s Cross, targeting medical research and tech firms.
• London’s growing position in the UK’s “Golden Triangle” of life science hubs (alongside Oxford and Cambridge).
• Concerns about whether demand will match the increased supply of bespoke life science spaces.
Economic Factors:
• The Bank of England’s interest rate cut and easing construction cost inflation could stimulate new projects.
• The UK outperformed G7 countries in GDP growth in H1 2024, despite slower growth expected in H2.
• Rental growth is likely to continue as tenant demand absorbs premium office spaces.
Contractor and Supply Chain Issues:
• Contractor insolvencies, such as ISG’s exit in September 2024, highlight vulnerabilities.
• Labour pressures are anticipated to drive cost increases over the next 12 months.
Geopolitical Risks:
• The ongoing impact of the Ukraine war and tensions in the Middle East remain significant concerns for developers and contractors.
• Despite this, Deloitte’s UK CFO survey indicates above-average confidence among business leaders.
The report suggests cautious optimism, with developers expecting potential recovery as the geopolitical and macroeconomic landscapes evolve. The focus on life sciences and high-value refurbishments may help navigate current challenges.
Developers rate ‘Construction costs’ and ‘Planning issues’ as leading challenges to development.
The UK construction industry in 2024 is contending with several significant challenges:
1. Planning Issues: Developers consistently cite planning complications as a primary obstacle, affecting project timelines and increasing costs.
2. Construction Costs: Although there’s a slight easing in cost inflation, construction expenses remain a major concern. Insolvencies among large construction firms have disrupted pricing structures, and recent policy changes, such as a 6.7% increase in the national minimum wage and a 1.2 percentage point rise in employers’ National Insurance contributions, are expected to further elevate costs.
3. Contractor Insolvencies: The industry has witnessed a rise in contractor insolvencies, leading to increased caution among remaining firms. This trend has resulted in contractors being more selective about projects, contributing to higher costs and project delays.
4. Labour Shortages: Severe shortages in skilled labor have created a contractor’s market, intensifying competition for qualified personnel and driving up wages.
5. Supply Chain Issues: While there has been some improvement in the macroeconomic environment, supply chain disruptions continue to pose challenges, affecting the availability and cost of materials.
6. Economic Environment: Despite a reduction in domestic political uncertainty following Labour’s landslide election victo-
Key findings: Summary
The London office market in 2024 experienced notable shifts:
1. Decline in New Construction Activity: There’s been a 12% decrease in new construction compared to previous periods. Notably, large-scale life science developments constitute over a third of this new volume, driving activity in submarkets like King’s Cross and Docklands.
2. Reduction in Refurbishment Projects: Refurbishment levels have dropped by 57%, marking the first time in 4.5 years that new traditional office builds have slightly surpassed refurbishments. However, developer sentiment suggests this decline may be temporary.
3. Completion Delays: Continuing a trend of delays limiting delivery rates to 75% of projected completions, the current period records a 72% completion rate, contributing to an increase in ongoing construction volume.
4. Projected Annual Completions: Estimates indicate that 2024 will deliver between 5.9 million to 6.8 million sq. ft. of office space, with no signs of market saturation.
5. Contractor Insolvencies: Financial difficulties among contractors are adding pressure to an already strained construction sector, potentially impacting future project timelines and costs.
These developments highlight the dynamic nature of London’s office market, influenced by factors such as the rise of life science sectors, project delays, and financial challenges within the construction industry.
ry in July, economic factors still influence the construction sec tor, impacting investment decisions and project viability.
These challenges necessitate strategic planning and adaptability from developers and contractors to navigate the evolving landscape of the UK construction industry. n
The full Deloitte report may be found here: https://www.deloitte.com/uk/en/about/press-room/wintertwenty-twenty-four-london-office-crane-survey.html
Advice
The Aim of the Society is to stimulate a wider concern for the beauty of the capital city, for the preservation of its charms and the careful consideration of its developments
WHY DO WE EXIST?
We believe that London's future must be shaped by contemporary culture as well as its rich and layered history
WHAT WE DO
Celebrate and enjoy the capital’s culture and architectural history. Debate how we plan a future that is beautiful, sustainable and fair
HOW WE DO IT
Engage Londoners with how the capital is designed and planned through tours, walks, talks and debates
FIND OUT MORE www.londonsociety.org.uk
London of the Future is a once-in-a-century publication from the London Society. The 昀rst edition was created in 1921 and proposed such ‘radical’ ideas as a green belt around London and a tunnel that would connect London to France.
100 years later, we asked a group of experts what could and should happen to London in the coming years and the responses have included natural solutions, different scales of economy, new forms of governance, better local food production, a radical rethink of education, improved housing provision and even dabbling in arti昀cial intelligence.
Contributors include: Anna Minton, Carolyn Steel, Claire Bennie, Dame Baroness Laurence, Gillian Darley, Grafton Architects, Hugh Pearma, Indy Johar, Jude Kelly, Kat Hanna, Mark Brearley, Mark Stevenson, Neal Shasore, Roma Agrawal, Sarah Ichioka, Smith Mordak, Tony Travers and Yasmin Jones-Henry.
