Planning in London July 2016 by London Society

PLANNING IN LONDON ..........

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:15 Page 1

THE NEW MAYOR OF LONDON – what do we know? Jenna Goldberg page 13 LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM New planning Act, new mayor...p.30 ‘PRE-APPS’ need to get the buzz back Grant Leggett p.41 www.planninginlondon.com

Issue 98 JULY-SEPTEMBER 2016

BREXIT AND PLANNING – Janice Morphet page 9; BREXIT AND DEVOLUTION, Ben Rogers page 12; LONDEXIT MIGHT BE GOOD FOR US, Leader page 5; LONDON ELECTIONS – THE OUTCOME Snapdragon Consulting page 43; TRANSPORT AND DEVELOPMENT – Mind the gaps says Nicholas Falk page 55; Autonomous vehicles and future placemaking, Farrell’s Nigel Bidwell page 71 THE ESSENTIAL GUIDE TO DEVELOPMENT IN THE CAPITAL

Please subscribe: page 70

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:15 Page 2

Interested in Londonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s past & Londonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s future?

Would you like to get a behind-the-scenes look at the forces that are shaping the future of London and discover a host of fascinating public programmes, tours, lectures and other convenings that celebrate this great city?

WWW.LONDONSOCIETY.ORG.UK/MEMBERSHIP

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:15 Page 3

CONTENTS

page 5 LEADERS An outward-looking place; Londexit might be good for us; Mayor calls for polices to nurture ‘culture’ Brian Waters

7 BORDEAUX – wine, football, architecture: Mike Stiff

BORDEAUX – wine, football, architecture Mike Stiff page 7

9 ANALYSIS: BREXIT AND PLANNING

Janice Morphet, UCL

12 BREXIT AND DEVOLUTION Ben Rogers, Centre for London 13 THE NEW MAYOR OF LONDON – what do we know? Jenna Goldberg, LCA 16 WE PLAN LONDON Sara Dilmamode 18 THE PLANNING CONVENTION Better planning solutions? Drummond Robson reports 20 OPINION: OFFICES-TO-RESIDENTIAL CONVERSIONS Martin Goodall 21 BRIEFING THE NEW MAYOR OF LONDON – what do we know? Jenna Goldberg page 13

22 PLANNING PERFORMANCE Increase in dwellings through change of use 26 CLIPBOARD 29 ¡PILLO! 30 LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM New planning Act, new mayor... 38 LETTERS Michael Bach and Martin Goodall 40 ANDY ROGERS Prescience, or what?

HTA

LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM New planning Act, new mayor... p.30

41 ‘PRE-APPS’ NEED TO GET THE BUZZ BACK Grant Leggett, Boyer Continues next page >>>

Issue 98 JULY-SEPTEMBER 2016

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:15 Page 4

CONTENTS CONTINUED

43 LONDON ELECTIONS – THE OUTCOME Snapdragon Consulting 55 TRANSPORT AND DEVELOPMENT Mind the gaps says Nicholas Falk, Urbed 61 PUBLIC SPACES Stephen Wojcik. Conway 65 BOOKS: Dystopia on trial Lee Mallett reviews Cities for a Small Continent and English Planning in Crisis – 10 steps to a sustainable future

TRANSPORT AND DEVELOPMENT Mind the gaps says Nicholas Falk page 55

67 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REFERENCE GUIDE Contacts in all London boroughs – sponsored by Colliers International 70 SUBSCRIPTION FORM 71 SHAPING LONDON – Sir Terry Farrell Autonomous vehicles and future placemaking by Farrell’s Nigel Bidwell 73 ADVICE Consultants and services

ISSN 1366-9672 (PRINT) ISSN 2053-4124 (DIGITAL) ISSUE 98 JULY-SEPTEMBER 2016

PUBLIC SPACES Stephen Wojcik page 61 Publishing Editors: Brian Waters, Paul Finch and Lee Mallett editor@planninginlondon.com, planninginlondon@mac.com Editorial, subscriptions and advertising: Tel: 020 8948 2387 Email: planninginlondon@mac.com Contents ©Land Research Unit Ltd or as stated. Available only on subscription: £99 pa

Provides a licence for five copies by email See subscription form or buy online at www.planninginlondon.com. Planning in London is published quarterly in association with The London Planning & Development Forum by Land Research Unit Ltd Studio Petersham, Gorshott, 181 Petersham Road TW10 7AW Contributors write in a personal capacity. Their

views are not necessarily those of The London Development & Planning Forum or of their organisations. Correspondence and contributions are invited for consideration. The editors reserve the right to edit material and letters supplied.

Design Council CABE City of London Law Society Confederation for British Industry DCLG Design for London/Urban Design London Historic England Environment Agency Greater London Authority Home Builders Federation Landscape Architecture SE London Chambers of Commerce & Industry London Forum of Amenity Societies London Housing Federation National Planning Forum ICE, RIBA, RICS, RTPI, UDAL, TCPA Transport for London London University (The Bartlett, UCL) University of Westminster

Affiliated members: Planning Aid for London London Metropolitan University

 Made on a Mac

www.planninginlondon.com The London Planning and Development Forum (LPDF) The LPDF was formed in 1980 following an all-party inquiry into the development control system. It selects topics to debate at its quarterly meetings and these views are reported to constituent bodies. It is a sounding board for the development of planning policy in the capital, used by both the public and private sector. Agendas and minutes are at planninginlondon.com. To attend please contact secretary Drummond Robson: robplan@btconnect.com The LPDF is administered by: Chairman: Brian Waters MA DipArch (Cantab) DipTP RIBA MRTPI ACArch PPACA FRSA

Planning in London

Principal: The Boisot Waters Cohen Partnership brian@bwcp.co.uk Honorary Secretary: Drummond Robson MRTPI, 41 Fitzjohn Avenue, Barnet, Herts EN5 2HN Tel: 0208 449 3113 Fax: 0208 440 2015: robplan@btconnect.com Honorary Treasurer: Alastair Gaskin alastair.gaskin@btinternet.com Member bodies Association of Consultant Architects Association of London Borough Planning Officers/Planning Officers’ Society London Councils British Property Federation

THE LP&DF IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE LONDON SOCIETY

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:15 Page 5

LEADERS

An outward-looking place The Mayor has a wider vision for London

Our new Mayor Sadiq Khan has shown no hesitation in making decisions and getting into the fray of promoting London and engaging with all the issues coming before him. “London’s place as the world’s greatest city – our economic, social and cultural success – were all built on being an outward-looking place, fully engaged with the rest of the world. “And Britain will continue to be one of the biggest growing economies in the world. Our city and our country will continue to be the best place in the world to do business. And we will, of course, continue to look outwards and trade and engage with the entire world – including the European Union.” So said the Mayor on the day the referendum result was known. With this positive spirit London will continue to prosper, though maybe at a modified pace (see below). We Londoners should focus now on a wider horizon and seek out the opportunities waiting for us farther abroad, less constrained than we have been. At the same time we should continue to enjoy and share the familiar culture of our nearest neighbours, for several of whom London is one of their major cities – and continue to enjoy the mutual rewards of trade with them as a matter of course. We wish the new Mayor the best and support his open, cosmopolitan vision which will benefit all Londoners, our visitors and investors.

Londexit might be good for us London is bursting at the seams. The pressure of redevelopment whether it's commercial, housing or infrastructure is evident wherever you look. And the pressure for development, the same. For those familiar with central and southern Europe this is all the more remarkable given the abandoned building sites, empty shops and rundown centres which are evident in many of those Planning in parts. The financial crisis which is blamed started eight years ago and affected the UK as well. London has But for London its success may have been a bit too much of a good thing. The Brexit/Londexit been published will have ramifications at all levels but the overall calming of the frenzy of new development, new and edited by infrastructure and new housing might benefit from calming down a bit so that we may review and Brian Waters, refresh the planning system and its political context. Lee Mallett and And we could use the time to recharge the resources needed to manage things for a better longPaul Finch since term outcome as well as to plan for long-term infrastructure and bring a cooler perspective to London's development. 1992

Issue 98 JULY-SEPTEMBER 2016

>>>

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:15 Page 6

LEADERS

Mayor calls for polices to nurture ‘culture’ Carrots not sticks will yield a cultural infrastructure plan for London

*a local hairstyle from the early ‘00s (copied by David Beckham)

RIGHT: New extension to Tate Modern, just open Architect: Herzog de Meuron IMAGE: © Macegroup

Planning in London

The Mayor’s ideas for a cultural infrastructure plan announced at the opening of Tate Modern’s extension refer to ‘creative enterprise zones’ that will provide subsidised artists studios and a ‘package of incentives that will make living and working in London affordable’. Sadiq talks about making ‘culture…integral to the city’s development and future’. The new political establishment seeks to bolster its cultural credentials with populist built environment policies. And why not? If Tate is the most powerful example of how taxpayers’ money can be spent to encourage social renewal and physical regeneration, why not spend more taxpayers’ money to achieve the goal of improving people’s life chances in subsidised artists studios and maker places, which we enjoy the product of? But the reality of making desirable land uses ‘affordable’ like housing or cultural activities requires much more curatorial nous and input, not to mention subsidy, than is evident in London’s failed ‘affordable’ housing policies. Sadiq needs to beware of falling into the same protectionist trap that has failed to produce the housing London needs. Who will create new ‘affordable’ creative space? Is it likely, do we think, that developers will be asked to create and retain these spaces in their developments, and to cross- subsidise them with other more profitable uses, if they are to be affordable for ‘creatives’? You can bet your ’Hoxton Fin’* on it. Ask developers if they are up for this and the more enlightened will say they are, but only up to a point, Lord Copper. Beyond that point extra taxation will discourage creation of creative space. This is because money gets discouraged and seeks other easier places in which to multiply. ‘Why should I invest money in this business, if that one over there offers better returns?’ Everybody wants affordable houses. So policies that seek this are the order of play everywhere, but they haven’t delivered because they deploy too much stick and not enough carrot. Sadiq needs to be very clever to ensure new ‘affordable’ planning polices designed to nurture and encourage ‘culture’ – whatever that is – don’t have the opposite effect of that intended. First rule of planning Mr Mayor. ■

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:15 Page 7

A TRIP TO BORDEAUX | MIKE STIFF

Bordeaux – wine, football, architecture Mike Stiff puts us into a (much-needed) holiday mood as he reports on the architects’ livery company study tour of Bordeaux

IMAGES: ABOVE: Bordeaux City Centre, TOP RIGHT La Cité du Vin opened last month by President Hollande BELOW: Site of an early Wales win in the Euros, Le Stade Matmut Atlantique, architect: Herzog de Meuron

The Architects’ Company is a relatively modern City livery company; it is peripatetic which has the added advantage of accessing many of the magnificent Livery halls in the City of London. Peter Murray is the current Master. A few weeks ago he organised a weekend visit to Bordeaux, a City of 700,000 people in the South West of France, known principally for its legendary Claret, but also a place that cradles some very fine architecture both old and new. Bordeaux City Centre Alain Juppé first became the mayor of the city in 1995 and is still incumbent. His legacy is engrained in what we see today, most of the old buildings have been cleaned exposing the beautiful pale cream limestone of the region, the wharves on the river front have been torn down and replaced with a broad sweeping riverside park, a tram system has been installed and the dockland redevelopment is well underway. The city centre is remarkably well preserved and the scale and material palette create a homogenous environment that is a delight to wander around. There is plenty of good modern architecture as well, Foster, Rogers, Nouvel, Herzog de Meuron and Le Corbusier to mention a few. With the exception of Rogers’ Law Courts most of these works are outside the historic core. Stade Matmut Atlantique Herzog de Meuron’s Stade Matmut Atlantique is a masterclass in economy of budget, thinking and detail. It is a beautifully executed stadium that, unlike most new stadia, has an understated air of calm. The building was not expensive and time was clearly spent making sure that the details were minimised, refined and delivered beautifully. The seated area is column free, the structure pushed to the circulation zones behind, giv-

ing the building its distinctive forest of columns, reminiscent of the pine trees that line the coast of the Landes region. La Cité du Vin If that is a discrete metaphor, the same cannot be said for the Cité du Vin, just opened in the Bassins a Flot district to the north east of the town centre. Designed by Parisians X-TU architects, it lacks all of the subtlety of metaphor and craft that the Stade Matmut Atlantique displays. The clumsy blobby form is metaphorically the swirl of wine in a glass, but up close it is poorly put together a mish mash of timber, glass and aluminium. The exhibition inside is very good, Casson Mann have >>>

Issue 98 JULY-SEPTEMBER 2016

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:15 Page 8

A TRIP TO BORDEAUX | MIKE STIFF

RIGHT: Foster at Chateau Margaux BELOW LEFT: Michael Stiff is a partner in architects Stiff + Trevillion BOTTOM: Corb at Pessac

excelled at making what is quite a “dry” topic interesting and interactive, not a museum for the purists, it is an entertaining way for novices or children to learn about the region’s principle export. If the massing does not inspire, the top floor restaurant fails to deliver too. There is so much structure, four layers of façade, that the views out are almost non-existent. The detailing is very much on display here, and it is best not to look too closely. Foster’s Châteaux Margaux At Châteaux Margaux the opposite is true, Fosters have delivered a beautifully crafted sequence of buildings and spaces that makes the process look effortless, as architects we know how hard that is to achieve. Rem Koolhaas’s Maison de Bordeaux Rem Koolhaas’s Maison de Bordeaux is only 18 years old, yet it seems to hark back to an earlier era. A house that was built on a hilly semi rural site for a wheelchair bound client, the three

levels are linked by a hydraulic floor that moves through the building, a clever idea that adds much needed volume to the layered section. It is structurally complex, creating a gravity defying concrete box for the bedrooms that hovers over the living area and deck. It lacks dexterity, and feels a bit overwrought, too many ideas at the expense of quality space. Le Corbusier’s 1926 project at Pessac In contrast Le Corbusier’s 1926 project at Pessac is a surprising joy. Known as a modernist failure that was modified by its original tenants, pitched roofs were added, strip windows reduced, and cornicing installed, recent years have been far kinder. New owners have continued the work started by the local authority and most of the 51 dwellings have been stripped back, and restored to the original Polychromie colour scheme. It is now possible to see what it should have been. They are simple and well proportioned volumetrically clever houses that provide a calm backdrop to everyday life. It is interesting to note that the project was instigated after WWI, which devastated the rural communities of France, many of whom still lived in primitive agricultural dwellings. Le Corbusier used the mass production techniques that were honed on the battlefields of Flanders to make the new homes. A final visit to the Nazi submarine base in the docks of Bordeaux showed just how far concrete architecture developed in the next 20 years. The concrete walls and roofs are so dense and impenetrable that demolition is out of the question. It is an eerie place, imbued with its murky past, and soon to be converted to an arts centre, part of the large-scale redevelopment of the Bassins a Flot that is now underway. ■ © Stiff + Trevillion

Planning in London

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:15 Page 9

ANALYSIS: BREXIT AND PLANNING | JANICE MORPHET

Brexit and planning What are the implications of Brexit for planning in England? Janice Morphet explores Following the UK referendum that voted to leave the EU, it is worth considering what the implications for planning might be in the event that Article 50 is triggered and leave negotiations commence. As the UK has been advised by the EU, there would be two stages in this process. The first would be the terms of exit and the second would be to negotiate future trading arrangements. These negotiations will be held consecutively rather than simultaneously. At the end of the exit stage, English would then no longer be an official EU language which would probably mean that all EU documents would revert to being published in French as before 1992. This short note has been written to advise National Planning Forum members on the alternative options that might be pursued and how these have varied implications for planning. It is also important to note that this is an evolving situation and that more options and considerations may emerge over time. The note firstly considers which policies the UK has pooled within the EU and the ways in which these shape the legislative framework, implementation tools and delivery programme. The note then continues to review a range of options for the UK that have been mentioned in the Brexit referendum campaign and how each of these might influence the planning system. There is also a table that provides an opportunity to compare the alternatives. What policies and powers has the UK pooled within the UK that have an influence on planning? Since its inception the European Community and, later after 1992, the European Union has operated through the development of pooled powers between the member states. These have been developed through common principles, policies and programmes that are delivered through legislation and other forms of agreement. The EU has a different legal culture from the UK. The EU adopts a cumulative approach to legislation, signi-

fied by the ‘whereas’ clauses at the beginning of every formal document, compared with the UK that maintains a five- year episodic model where each Parliament is taken individually. Although the difference in cultural institutional practice has been difficult for the UK to accommodate, it has always fully participated in EU negotiations and agreements of policy and legislation although this has not been reported formally through Parliament or through the media, unlike other member states. The dominant model of institutional practice within the EU is through the adoption of key principles through agreements and treaties that are then applied through subsequent legislative and implementation programmes. The legal tools are primarily directives and regulations. Directives are implemented by member states in their own legislation within an agreed timescale. Regulations are implemented by member states at the point of agreement, in the words as written and do not have to be approved by member state Parliaments. There are other forms of agreement including the use of Administrative Space, the Open Method of Coordination and informal ministerial agreements. The legislative framework, including disputes and non-compliance, are set within judgements made by the European Courts of Justice (ECJ). EU projects and programmes are funded though the European Investment Bank (EIB) to which member states and their public bodies including local authorities also have access for capital projects. Economic Policy Within the EU treaties (primarily Rome, Maastricht and Lisbon), the economic focus is preeminent and is expressed through the overarching principles of economic and social cohesion. This is primarily expressed through structural funds programmes and membership of the Single Market introduced in 1992. Over time and through negotiated agreements (that the UK has fully participated in) the EU is now responsible for the macroprudential policy of its member states. In the exer-

Janice Morphet is a visiting Professor at the Bartlett School of Planning, UCL j.morphet@ucl.ac.uk twitter: janicemorphet ©

cise of this policy, the European Commission (EC) makes judgements on member state economies, advised by the OECD, IMF and World Bank. Since the economic crisis in 2007, the EU has adopted an economic policy programme Europe 2020 and the progress of each member state towards achieving a sound economy is assessed every six months after which recommendations are made. Since Europe 2020, the UK has consistently been recommended to improve its performance on infrastructure delivery, housing market reform, planning regulation and young peoples’ skills. These four recommendations are also consistent with the judgements on the UK’s economy made by the IMF and OECD in the same period. Other pooled policies The UK has pooled a range of policies within the EU since its membership in 1972. These have primarily been generated by the single market and are located in the principles of free movement of capital, good, services and people. The policies that have been pooled are listed below. Most, UK legislation on these policies is that agreed within with EU: • Transport – all modes and scales • Energy • Water • Air • Habitats • Waste • Ports • Rural/agriculture • Public health • Culture/heritage • Regeneration policy • R and D >>>

Issue 98 JULY-SEPTEMBER 2016

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:15 Page 10

ANALYSIS: BREXIT AND PLANNING | JANICE MORPHET IMAGE RIGHT: © Remarkable Engagement

• Higher education • Telecommunications • Economic infrastructure including housing Each of these policies is operated through legal frameworks and then delivery programmes that are directed towards improving standards for specific issues such air quality or energy consumption or by improving economic and social cohesion through locational competitiveness aided by investment in transport or research and development. Increasingly these programmes are being drawn together in more integrated ways and operate through tiers of government. For example in transport, the Trans European Networks (TEN-T) programme is designed to improve access for goods and people across the EU’s area and this is supplemented by Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMP) within city regions that link to the networks and improve other objective environmental standards. Sectoral programmes have also been developed in isolation but in 2013, through a new Cohesion Regulation, they have been brought together at the sub-state level. For the first time transport, energy, R and D, rural, ports, urban, maritime, environment, economic regeneration and poverty programmes and funding have been brought together. In England these are delivered through local growth deals and projects and programme delivery is already exercised by the Mayor of London. They were anticipated to be taken on by the mayors of the new combined authorities when they are elected in 2017 and onwards. For spatial planning, the UK disputed the EC’s role and powers in 1992 at the outset of the work on the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP). Following its adoption in 1999, the ESDP has had an informal status and been used across Europe. At the same time the EC introduced new mega regional areas as part of its wider cohesion policy including the Atlantic Arc and North Sea region. These again were informal but supported through funding. Lastly, through the single market, a compendium of planning systems in each member state was prepared. The position of spatial planning has changed since the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty in 2007, when territory was added to the principles of economic and social cohesion. Since then there has been a slowly developing approach to consider the

Planning in London

ways in which the territory of the EU should be added into its policies. There was a report on the Territorial Agenda as part of Europe 2020 and more recently (May 2016), the Urban Pact has been adopted that includes explicit commitments to review and develop policy on spatial planning. This is being accompanied by a new spatial planning compendium and development of the scenario planning across the EU that will result in a revised ESDP, that is likely to be linked with the new EU infrastructure investment programme launched in 2014. The UK has been a major user of this investment programme. This will develop and supplement the TEN-T and TEN-E (energy) programmes.. The mega regional programmes and policies have been developed individually and formally adopted as part of the EU’s legal framework with the Baltic Sea, the Adriatic, the Danube and the Alps agreed and more expected. These are multi level contracts where the objectives for the regions are formally enshrined within the EU. Treaty agreements where EU acts to ensure compliance There are also some treaties and agreements that the UK has made with other bodies such as the World Trade Organization where the EU now supervises their implementation for each of its member states. These include agriculture and competition. There may also be environmental obligations that continue through agreements with the UN and any agreements signed following Paris. What are the implications when the UK triggers Article 50? As shown on the table, the options post-leave are primarily related to the regulatory framework. All options other than remain remove access to legal frameworks, funding and project support including for major transport projects such as the A14, Northern rail hub and Crossrail and local transport schemes including integrated ticketing and rail improvements. The Cohesion programmes when ended will also remove local growth deals, rural development support, research and development funds and regeneration and skills support. Other programmes that are lost icnlude Horizon for science and Erasmus for student exchange. A second less well defined set of consequences

relate to the outlook for the economy and foreign investment that influence the confidence for development. What are the options? The European Economic Area (EEA): the ‘Norway’ Model In the EEA or Norway model, the UK would have access to the Single Market in return for payment of a similar fee to that paid now and the adoption of the four freedoms for capital, good, services and labour. The UK would receive no rebate and no funding for infrastructure projects or cohesion. Other regulatory requirements through the WTO such as for agriculture and trade remain. Also the policies for aligning administrative boundaries with those of functional economic areas will continue as an OECD , IMF and World Bank policy. Trade Agreements: Canada/Switzerland Model In this model, the UK would agree trade terms with the EU for goods and services on the acceptance of EU regulations and payment of a fee. The Swiss model includes financial services and goods and is based on the acceptance of the four single market freedoms. The Canadian model is primarily focussed on specific goods rather than services and rests on the acceptance of the EU’s regulations before there is access to its market. The UK would receive no rebate and no funding for infrastructure projects or cohesion. Other regulatory requirements through the WTO such as for agriculture and trade remain. Also the policies for aligning administrative boundaries with those of functional economic areas will continue as an OECD , IMF and World Bank policy. The Free Trade Model The UK would negotiate specific trade agreements with any other country and would do this within the WTO rules. It would have no access to existing trade agreements between the WTO, the EU and other countries. The UK would receive no rebate and no funding for infrastructure projects or cohesion. Other regulatory requirements through the WTO such as for agriculture and trade remain. Also the policies for aligning administrative boundaries with those of functional economic areas will continue as an OECD , IMF and World Bank policy.

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:15 Page 11

Examination of the Brexit options and their influence on planning

The reverse Greenland model Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark and was a member of the EU between 1973-1982. Following a referendum, Greenland opted to change its status to that of an associated overseas territory within the EU. Greenland is eligible for specific funding from the EU’s general budget through the EU-Greenland Partnership and the President of the Commission (on behalf of the EU), the Prime Minister of Denmark and the Greenland Premier signed on 19th March 2015 'an umbrella' framework document for the post-2013 EU-Greenland relations, a “Joint Declaration on relations between the European Union, on the one hand, and the Government of Greenland and the Government of Denmark, on the other”. This approach has been suggested as an option for the UK. It would not require the triggering of Article 50 and would allow Scotland, London, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar to remain within the EU and for other areas to have an associated status. It would then not have the land border issues on the island of Ireland or between England and Scotland should independence be pursued. Remain The UK remains a full member of the EU until at least two years after it triggers the exit process through Article 50. ■ How do these models reflect on the planning system? The implications of each of these positions on existing legislation, policy and programmes are shown on the table, RIGHT

Janice Morphet, BSc Dip TP MA PhD FRTPI Janice was a Senior Adviser on local government at DCLG, Chief Executive of Rutland CC, Director of Technical Services at Woking, Secretary of SERPLAN and Professorial Head of the School of Planning and Landscape at Birmingham Polytechnic. Since 2006, she has been a consultant and on the Planning Committee of London 2012. She is a CABE BEE. Janice has been a Visiting Professor at the Bartlett School of Planning UCL for over ten years and has been a trustee of the RTPI and the TCPA. Janice researches infrastructure and state rescaling. Her recent books are Effective Practice in Spatial Planning (2011), How Europe Shapes British Public Policy (2013), Applying leadership and management in planning: theory and practice (2015) and Infrastructure delivery planning: an effective practice approach (2016)

Issue 98 JULY-SEPTEMBER 2016

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:15 Page 12

BREXIT AND DEVOLUTION | BEN ROGERS

Brexit and devolution Time will show us whether the referendum marked the point at which London got some of the powers that its counter-parts in other countries take for granted says Ben Rogers As has been widely observed, the EU referendum revealed a nation divided across many fault lines, including class, education and age, but also geography. The capital in particular showed the strongest vote to remain in the UK of any region or nation with some 60 per cent of Londoners voting to remain, compared to 51 per cent across the UK as a whole, and 41 per cent in the West Midlands – the most Europhobic region. The Mayor of London and London business groups were quick to respond to the referendum and within a few days the Mayor had put out a statement arguing that the result boosted the case for giving more power to the capital: Speaking at business summit, Sadiq Khan urged the Government to “move fast” on devolution, and said “we can't hang around for the outcome of the negotiations before we give Londoners more control”. It has to be said that I am not quite convinced that this was the right time to be making the argument for devolving more power to the capital. After all, while the referendum result was ostensibly a vote against the EU it was also, surely, a vote against 'London' and the London based economic, political and economic establishments - the City, central government, and the metropolitans elites who run most of our national life. The UK, it should never be forgotten, has the greatest regional disparities of any OECD nation and remains, despite the devolutionary reforms of the Blair and, to a lesser extent Cameron governments, a relatively centalised state. Against this background, perhaps the first reaction of London should not have been to call for more control over its affairs, but to promise to redouble efforts to win over those millions of citizens who evidently feel alienated from the capital, its wealth, power and metropolitan values. But perhaps the Mayor could reasonably respond that London government is not the same thing as the London establishment and that he wants other regions to and cities to be given more

Planning in London

power too. This is not, Sadiq Khan might say, London making a grab for more of everything it already has, but London government calling for the decentralisation of power from Westminster and Whitehall to City Hall and the boroughs. Timing aside, I find the Mayor's calls for further decentralisation of power, over taxes and services Ben Rogers is director, to London compelling. Cities like Paris and New Centre for London York have far more control over their taxes and services than London does. As the 2013 London Finance Commission reported set out, a staggering Wales voted leave, the leave vote (52 per cent) was 66 per cent of London’s income comes from cen- not as high as in many English regions. A second tral government grant, compared with 30.9 per argument, and one likely to weigh more heavily with No 10 and the Treasury, is simply that further cent in New York, and only 7.7 per cent in Tokyo. But will the Brexit vote lead to London getting devolution, especially to London, could help boost more power? It is not obvious that it will. Over the UK economy at a time when government will the next few years both Parliament and the Civil be desperate for growth. London and the broader Service are likely to be absorbed in dealing with the South East make an outsized contribution to the fall-out from June's vote and striking a new deal UK's prosperity. Giving the Mayor and London govwith the EU. Moreover, if, as most economists pre- ernment more power over taxes and services could dict, the economy weakens, the natural tendency ensure that the capital can develop funding of national government is likely to want to take a arrangements and other policies tailor-made to the firmer grip on all the levers within its reach. It easy cities challenges. Giving London more power over to imagine, in these circumstances, that calls for property taxes, could for instance, allow it to invest further devolution to London and other regions will more in housing and transport. The next months and years will show us fall on deaf ears. But there are also arguments pointing the other whether the referendum marked the point at way. First, many commentators and politicians which London got some of the powers that its have suggested that one of the reasons that so counter-parts in other countries take for granted or many English voters feel alienated from the politi- whether central Government retained and even cal establishment, including the EU, is precisely tightened its grip on its highly productive capital. ■ because regional and city government is relatively weak. Scotland and Ireland, both with devolved IMAGE BELOW: government, voted to stay in the EU, and while © Remarkable Engagement

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:15 Page 13

A NEW MAYOR | JENNA GOLDBERG

The new Mayor of London – what do we know? Jenna Goldberg doesn’t know the result of the referendum… Jenna is a director at London Communications Agency, a PR and communications consultancy which specialises in London issues. Jenna leads LCA’s dedicated research team

Reader, I am talking to you from the past so please forgive any gaps in my knowledge. A lot can happen in the two weeks between deadline and publication, especially when a new political administration is setting itself up to run a major world city and we’re about to go to the polls on an historic, national referendum. From your place in the future, you might know what the new Mayor of London’s first big housing announcement was or who will be looking after planning in London for the next four years. Don’t give me any spoilers about Brexit though, I’m too nervous… Luckily, there is much I do know. I know that Sadiq Khan won City Hall back for Labour with a record-breaking number of first preferences votes (1,148, 716 against Zac Goldsmith’s 909,755) and 5 per cent of the final, head-to-head vote. His experience of campaigning in London – he led Labour’s efforts in the capital in the 2014 local election and the 2015 general election – stood him in excellent stead and his use of the party’s ground force was extremely effective. I also know that it would be easy to criticise his Tory rival’s somewhat lacklustre campaign.

Goldsmith’s colleagues in the Conservative Party quickly distanced themselves from his negative messaging when it became clear that the Richmond Park and North Kingston MP would not get the job; however, Goldsmith’s vote share (35 per cent of first preferences) was actually pretty respectable for a Tory candidate in London. In the last 10 years it’s only Boris who has been able to significantly better it and as we know, he’s far from your typical Tory politician. The days following the election, and particularly the swearing in ceremony at Southwark Cathedral, saw praise heaped upon the new Mayor for his inclusive approach and upon the wise electorate for seeing through Goldsmith’s tactics and demonstrating that London is indeed the open, tolerant world city we already knew it to be. Khan’s appeal to young voters in particular has meant that the Prime Minister, his unlikely ally in the Remain camp, has been eager to be seen with the new Mayor ahead of the referendum. But it’s now been more than a month since Khan unpacked his desk and we are beginning to get a sense of how he is going to govern and who will be supporting him. The honeymoon isn’t quite

over but we are thinking about drying off and coming in from the beach. The Mayor’s early appointments were made largely from his existing campaign and parliamentary teams and were names not well known within wider London political circles. David Bellamy his chief of staff has a private sector background in financial services while director of communications Patrick Hennessy is a well-respected former political journalist who did a stint at Labour HQ until going to work on the Khan campaign. Bellamy, Hennessy and others, all relatively inexperienced in high level politics, now have to prove strength and depth when it comes to building relations with national and local government. James Murray was a name we heard a lot in the lead up to the election. A young councillor, he was first elected in his early twenties and has made a name for himself as the holder of the housing brief at Islington Council. He is a controversial figure in the property industry, known for pushing developers hard on affordable housing numbers and viability assessments. He is now Sadiq’s Deputy Mayor for Housing and will be the person responsible for helping Khan to achieve his 50 per cent affordable housing target. Of course, this ambitious target is extremely tough, a number to strive for rather than hit. Indeed, Khan has spent his first few weeks in office carefully managing expectations on this point, making sure that we understand the challenging hand he has been dealt by his predecessor and the limited means he has to make a difference. In his first appearance in front of the London Assembly Housing Committee, Murray carefully explained that ‘affordable’ could mean a whole range of products and that greater clarity would be provided as part of amending the London Plan

Issue 98 JULY-SEPTEMBER 2016

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:15 Page 14

A NEW MAYOR | JENNA GOLDBERG

but refused to be drawn in much more than that. No one will know better than him and his boss just how much tension there is between getting those affordable numbers delivered and getting any new homes built at all. With all this in mind, delivery on public land will be key and I wouldn’t be surprised if you already know what the first big site will be to come forward under the Khan administration. You may also know what existing regeneration scheme the Mayor and Murray decide to make an example of – have they announced a review of Earls Court or Mount Pleasant? The missing piece in all of this is the senior lead on the planning side, the heavyweight role that Sir Eddie Lister played and that Sir Simon Milton had before him. This is the brief that needs a really steady pair of hands and someone who can function above the politics to make sensible, consistent

ER IV N U

T SI

B OF

K UC

the Thames, has been a bit lost in referendum fever. He does need something like this, a populist move that will help Londoners get to know him and his values. Ken ‘saved’ the Routemaster in his first few months in office, Boris had the bikes and benefitted hugely from the profile of London 2012 during his first summer at City Hall. Sadiq needs a way in to Londoners hearts now that the initial jubilation of his election victory has subsided. In your post-referendum world, perhaps Sadiq has had the space to achieve some of this but here, in the uncertain world I live in, it has probably been tough for him (indeed, for anyone) to focus on the nitty gritty of governing London while everyone is so distracted. In the next issue I’ll consider the referendum result and what it means for Sadiq, for politics in London and for the capital as a whole. By then of course, I’ll know it all. ■

ty ali u gQ n i ch ea T for

G IN

r ea Y T he ft o y sit r ive Un HE

decisions for the good of the whole city. The Mayor has also got to set the direction for his promised Homes for Londoners team. This key manifesto pledge was to set up an agency, made up of representatives from the boroughs and housebuilders of all kinds to drive housing delivery in a coordinated fashion. Sounds sensible in theory but tough in practice. Away from planning and housing, the new Mayor has made some headway. The Night Tube is on its way, though he’s going to have to show his teeth with the unions to make sure it launches as planning on 19 August. And the big manifesto pledge to freeze fares has been actioned, though he has been heavily criticised for the number of exceptions – suburban commuter travelcard prices will still go up as these are set by Government. His big shiny PR moment to date, a worldwide design competition to light up 17 bridges across

M HA

Master’s in

URBAN DESIGN

Social, Economic, and Environmental Value in Designing the Modern City: October 2016 - September 2017 The worlds of architecture and planning have been transformed over the last two decades by a data revolution that now enables practitioners to understand the relation between how buildings are situated and designed, their users’ physical wellbeing and mental health, and longer-term property values. This ground-breaking Master’s programme, based in central London, provides its students with the intellectual and practical skills necessary to work effectively in this rapidly changing field. Its students include architects, surveyors, urban design professionals, civic leaders, developers and investors —and those who simply wish to understand how new research techniques illuminate the aesthetic, social and financial consequences of different forms of urban design. The MA provides training in research methods and their application through an extended essay, undertaken under expert supervision, on a project of the student’s choice.

Planning in London

Central to the programme is its series of early-evening seminars, followed by discussion over dinner, led by some of the world’s leading authorities in the field. Speakers include: Sir Anthony Seldon • Dr David Halpern • David Rudlin • Professor Yolande Barnes Further details of the programme are available online: www.buckingham.ac.uk/humanities/ma/urbandesign

THE UNIVERSITY OF

BUCKINGHAM

LONDON PROGRAMMES

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:15 Page 15

Interested in Londonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s past & Londonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s future?

WWW.LONDONSOCIETY.ORG .UK/MEMBERSHIP

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:15 Page 16

WE PLAN LONDON | SARA DILMAMODE

We Plan London Sara Dilmamode introduces a new resource to help illuminate planning We Plan London (www.weplanlondon.com) is an innovative information and training resource that focuses on the complex issues surrounding development and planning in London. It is primarily aimed at people who need to understand or navigate the planning system– whether that’s developing planning policies to guide development, applying for or determining planning applications or delivering strategic planning projects. This includes of course planners, planning lawyers, surveyors and other built environment professionals but is not exclusive to these groups. We Plan London’s audience extends beyond this for instance to people involved in neighbourhood planning, as well as others in the public and private sector. The website has a London focus but much of the content is of broader relevance, and this is evident from the engagement with site. The website has users are not just from London and the southeast but across the globe. London is a global city and planning in London is extremely interesting! The concept for We Plan London was inspired by a single morning in life of a planner. One of mine! The first telephone call of the day was an explanation about ‘conformity’ between the London Plan and the Local Plan. This was followed by a meeting with a very intelligent but puzzled colleague who confessed (maybe raged a bit) about being unable to penetrate the “Secret Garden” of planning. They needed to understand about more about the legal ‘tests’ associated with

Planning in London

matters that can be included in Section 106 agreements to inform their work. Then another call with a Regional Planning Director from a central London consultancy working through how the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) phasing, which as at that time had been newly introduced, should and could be applied. This was all before turning to my main task of the day drafting planning policy. This led me to wonder how many times these planning basics, and not so basics, were being repeated across the capital. How many others were puzzling over not the big issues of successful places but rather translating processes and abbreviations to clients, navigating the requirements of new process or trying to streamline and improve existing ones, or just trying to keep up to date with changes to the legislative and national policy framework and what it means for their work. So We Plan London was born! The starting point was the creation of four animations – our ‘planimations’. These cover planning fundamentals such as what the ‘Development Plan is in London’, how planning applications are determined and explaining what CIL and Section 106 are. The planimations are a fresh and creative way of explaining these multifaceted procedures to a range of audiences, both technical and non-technical. The next stage was to start to collate links to useful tools and resources. Several leading planning consultancies in London create and share useful tools, resources and analysis of planning

Sara Dilmamode is a geographer, urban planner and founder and director of Citiesmode

issues. There are already many excellent resources that inform debate on London planning issues – this journal and other planning titles. London also has a myriad of professional network and other forums and organisations which highlight and celebrate innovative planning - particularly urban design - and move on the debate on the planning. There are also many excellent online resources such as datasets created by the Greater London Authority and Transport for London and other public sector organisations such as the Planning Advisory Service which are very useful in day-today planning work. We Plan London collates and organises these resources by topic area making it a useful first point of reference and means users of the site come back. We have continued to develop an engaging visual platform which includes a series of interviews with experts in the sector who are involved in the delivery of planning and shaping successful places. We’ve had some sound advice from Mike Kiely from the Planning Officers Society, Jamie Ounan and Chris Twigg and the rest of the Inner Circle Consulting team, as well as the very engaging and inspiring thoughts from the New London Architecture Chair, Peter Murray, to name a few. Macdonald and Company a London head quartered global built environment recruitment company, were struck by the innovative learning and professional development objectives of the site, and have partnered with us to begin to develop content that is more specifically related to career development. A new feature of We Plan London is the recent launch of Planning TV in partnership with Dentons Public Law Team. Together we are collaborating to broadcast bite-size debates between key industry experts on topics that are impacting on the City now. Planning TV has a core panel of experts from across the planning sector, supplemented with special guests hand picked for their particular expertise. One of our regular guest speakers

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:15 Page 17

includes the very brilliant Alice Lester, MBE from the Planning Advisory Service (PAS). Planning TV is focused on the fast changing and dynamic planning policy and legislative context. Episodes to date include analysis of the implications of the Housing and Planning Act and a discussion with Stephen Ashworth, Dentons and Gilian Mcciness, PAS on the government’s CIL review. We will also be hearing from more industry leaders in the coming weeks. We are trying to create a format that will enable the engagement of a wider audience on current issues. We Plan London isn’t just about the why and the wow of planning in London - it’s very much about the how. There many important practical, and occasionally rather mundane, not just philosophical matters to overcome in determining or submitting a planning application, in devising policies for an area, in implementing a new planning mechanism or recruiting and supporting and training planning staff – the stuff that gets you delivering great places that includes new homes, workspaces and public realm. The day-to-day stuff of planning has to get done. How do you do it really well? How when budgets are decreasing or in a challenging commercial context can you deliver successfully places? How do you get over the bureaucratic hurdles that are an inevitable feature of some planning process to liberate time to work on the real issues? I think this is a shared space of interest between the public and private sector – getting day-to-day tasks done more efficiently and effectively so that we can debate the issues that matter and ultimately delivering well planned places is our shared objective. So what next? Well We Plan London is keeping it real! We are about to publish a new series called “in conversation” which is about understanding the different perspectives and objectives of the public and private sector and working together effectively. This begins with a conversation between Barry Smith who heads up policy and strategy at Westminster City Council, one of London’s busiest planning authorities and Kieron Hyams from Arup’s leading planning consultancy team. This summer we are also excited to be launching our first batch of bite sized training courses

aimed at explaining tricky areas of planning practice. These “get straight to the point on how to…” online courses will be available from the site this summer. We’re kicking off with ‘CIL Bill’ a series of courses all about how to navigate the CIL charge setting and payment process. We like talking to and teaming up with individuals and organisations who really know their stuff and who have shared objectives of doing planning better, faster and maybe even with a tiny bit more flair. So if this is you we’d love to connect and create resources that help illuminate planning. ■

LEFT and BELOW: The website features simple animations for laypeople. If only planning were that simple! Filming of a series of short explanatory discussions is under way at ‘Planning TV’

Issue 98 JULY-SEPTEMBER 2016

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:15 Page 18

PLANNING CONVENTION | DRUMMOND ROBSON

Better planning solutions? Drummond Robson reports on last month’s Planning Convention A slick polished high tech 4 screen presentation hall and delegate space at SOMs 155 Bishopsgate looked like no expense spared to put on a show of planning perfection and the best in the business. The breakfast briefing included a simple suggestion from the floor, Could the Inspectorate eradicate anonymity from statements and proofs of evidence, since the quality of the evidence is influenced by the judgement and skills of who wrote it? I’ll look at it said Ben Linscott, Chief Planning Inspector reassuringly. Dates on documents wouldn’t come amiss either. The main programme got us going with Dr Alfonso Vegara from Madrid and his brilliant, sparkling ideas about linked (linear?) cities from Lisbon to Milan. Critical mass to ensure innovation etc. These were even outshone by diamond stud-

Planning in London

ded south American regional planning “Diamente Caribe”, certain to make us live happily ever after. (Didn’t Artorio Soria y Mata from the same City say something much the same without the pretty sparkle in the nineteenth century?). Award winning planning for and by the Good People of Plymouth with shorter travel times to London, lots of affordable housing and having everyone live within 400 metres of a bus stop. Exemplary ambitions. Must have followed all the right SHMAs and SHLAAs (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 and Procedural Practice in the Examination of Local Plans and what not? A worthy winner? More presentations assessing, with stacks of statistics, how we are doing accommodating growth. It seems we need to build a lot more

houses in all sorts of places. Goodness these people are so definite. Steve Quartermain, always good value, was given the task of asking what could be done better. His team was top notch: Andrew Jones from AECOM, Yolande Barnes Head of World Research at Savills, Toby Lloyd, Head of Policy from Shelter and Helen Hayes former planner and MP for Dulwich and West Norwood. AECOM gave us extracts from Big Bold, Local, Connected London 2065: daisy like flowers of growth corridors into London’s City Region, coping successfully with lots of migrants, while ensuring densification at hubs, not forgetting in the suburbs, new towns and the Green Belt. A genuinely insightful presentation came from Yolande Barnes: Not just housing but where peo-

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:15 Page 19

ple want to live. The bits we plan less well. Florence and Sao Paulo combined on one image into one seamless city, with similar fine grained mixed urbanism; wow! Tenements not monuments. Trying to be market makers, not market takers. Recognition that there is only so much that planning can do. Helping people to lift themselves. Toby Lloyd explained what we need to do, with the aid of a joint KPMG Shelter report “Building the Homes we Need”, - worth looking at. http://www.shelter.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/ 0019/802270/Building_the_homes_we_need__a_programme_for_the_2015_government.pdf His most powerful image was what has happened to house building since 1946, which shows the really big impact that local authority housing made until the mid 80s has never been matched by private and housing association building left to themselves with ever soaring prices from 1990 further depressing built numbers to its present post war low. (It hasn’t changed since this graph was drawn). His remedy is to change the stages at which interventions in the market (presumably through tax and the planning system) and competition happen, to reduce volatility in the land market allowing a more diverse development market where competition needs to be strongest, and with lower costs and higher and more affordable housing numbers. Helen Hayes was an active labour member of the Local Government Select Committee on the Housing and Town Planning Act 2016 and clearly not a fan of this latest attempt to make things better. She is not alone as the minutes of the last LPDF meeting show. Steve Quartermain followed this by saying that government planning policy is unchanged since the insane Brexit decision at the weekend and its politically chaotic aftermath. A statement of hope over confidence I suppose. But, what else could he say? I couldn’t take any more of this and left the conference at this point in the proceedings, wondering how things can be as comfortable and ordered as this all seemed. We have at least two years or more of economic turbulence. Political and even social attitudes are totally confused. Age, educational attainment and national identity all strongly influenced referendum voting.

Uncertainty about who is running the country or who the opposition is. Will the tranquillity in the hall be matched by that in Tottenham or Lincolnshire? What is to happen to migrants, population and employment? What changes we can expect from whoever does take over in the country’s regulatory regime now we are outside Europe, even assuming we still

have the same sovereign state as now? Can and should planning be as ordered as this? Should planning be so influenced by politicians and political choices, rather than professional and business judgement and local choice? And how can planning be genuinely productive? – not the regulators and those, less noisy, who tell us how to do it but those who actually do shape places. ■

Issue 98 JULY-SEPTEMBER 2016

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:15 Page 20

OPINION: OFFICES-TO-RESIDENTIAL CONVERSIONS | MARTIN GOODALL

Residential conversion of offices in London – the Mayor wades in The permitted development right granted by Class O of Part 3 in the Second Schedule to the GPDO, which allows the residential conversion of office buildings (subject to prior approval) has been bitterly opposed by several London Boroughs. An attempted legal challenge to this provision got short shrift in the High Court, and LPAs were driven back on the expedient of making Article 4 directions in those areas that were not specifically exempted by the GPDO itself. However, if an LPA wishes to avoid potentially substantial compensation claims, it must give not less than 12 months’ notice of the Article 4 Direction. The protected areas (which are not confined to London, although most of them are to be found in the capital) will cease to be protected in 2019. LPAs in those areas therefore have almost three years in which to get Article 4 Directions in place, although as the London Borough of Islington discovered, blanket Article 4 directions are liable to be struck down by the Secretary of State, using his default powers under that article. Any such directions will therefore have to be selective, and must be justifiable on objective criteria. Any direction that is too wide in its application is liable to suffer the Secretary of State’ s veto. However, the new Mayor of London (Sadiq Khan) issued a press release after his election announcing that he will put new measures in place to help protect and expand office space for small businesses, start-ups and entrepreneurs in London. Sadiq Khan made the announcement following the publication of new City Hall figures which show that since 2013, over 1.47 million square metres of office space could have already been converted into residential units in London using the Government’s permitted development rights, “which allow uncontrolled office-to-residential developments”. This means space for nearly 94,000 jobs in London could be lost through this process (the press release says). When it comes to specifics, it is clear that the Mayor has very little power to prevent the operation of Class O. Amending the London Plan “so that there is stronger protection for small businesses and start-up workspace” will not in fact prevent residential conversions under Class O, nor will it enable LPAs in London to refuse prior approval of these conversions. The statement simply says, rather weakly, that the Mayor will “work

Planning in London

with the Government on changes to permitted development rights”. I rather doubt whether he will get a very sympathetic hearing from De-CloG ministers. Sadiq Khan is quoted as saying: "These new figures lay bare the impact that the Government’s misguided policies are having on space for business in London. Of course we need new homes, but this does not need to be at the expense of the space we need for the businesses that provide our jobs and drive our prosperity. Space which is genuinely surplus to commercial needs should be identified authoritatively and its release carefully managed so that it does not undermine local business.” (One can almost hear the collective yawn from Marsham Street.) What Khan would like to do (although, as I have pointed out above, it will not in practice prevent the exercise of PD rights under the GPDO) is to change the London Plan “in order to protect viable business space and to create new start-up spaces in housing developments”. He asserts that there needs to be more control over where office space can be converted to residential use. Well, dream on, Sadiq. I am sorry to be so ‘down’ on London’s newly elected Mayor, especially since if I lived in London I would undoubtedly have voted for him. But politicians of all hues must learn not to promise what it is not within their power to deliver. It seems to me that local politicians are, in any event, all too often a long way behind the curve in recognising changing needs and demands for various types of accommodation, and this now applies to office space in the same way as it has done for some years to industrial land, not to mention retail premises. Time and again we still see local plans that seek to protect employment land, for which there is no longer any need or demand, and which seek to ‘protect the vitality and viability’ of shopping areas which have been dying on their feet for years, as a result of changing patterns of retail activity combined with developing technology. Studies have clearly shown a steadily reducing demand for office space, due to different patterns of working, again driven by technology – a trend that will only accelerate. The offices that Sadiq Khan and other local politicians are so keen to protect simply aren’t going to be needed in the future. Policies that seek to resist the redevelopment of

Martin Goodall is a planning solicitor with Keystone Law and author of ‘A Practical Guide to Permitted Changes of Use’ – Bath Publishing

industrial land and office premises, and changes of use away from retail in designated shopping areas, will only serve to create empty and increasingly derelict sites, when those sites could be making a positive economic contribution if redeveloped for other purposes. Whether this was in the government’s thinking in using the GPDO as the vehicle for liberalising the planning regime to facilitate changes of use in a way that would prevent local planning authorities from resisting or obstructing such changes is not clear, but the significantly expanded PD rights for changes of use in Part 3 undoubtedly have the beneficial effect of accelerating the desirable elimination of office space which, if not immediately redundant, would have been likely to become so in the fairly near future. Far from seeking to resist the changes of use permitted by Part 3 of the Second Schedule to the GPDO, local authority planners and their elected members should welcome this trend, and the contribution which the amended GPDO is making to bringing about these necessary and desirable changes. ■ From Martin Goodall's Planning Law Blog © MARTIN H GOODALL

Despite receiving the most applications for change of use in London, Richmond abounds with fading ‘Offices-to-let’ boards

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:15 Page 21

BRIEFING

The new Mayor's key manifesto pledges

of homes, as well as to increase numbers of affordable homes

• Ensure 50 per cent of all homes built in the capital are 'genuinely affordable', which includes making some available for London Living Rent, priced at one third of average local wages

• Fight for new Mayoral powers including the ability to freeze rents in the capital and introduce a 'use it or lose it' policy for house builders who are land banking.

• Give 'first dibs' to Londoners on new homes, and crack down on the sale of new build homes to overseas investors

SHLAA on its way

• Freeze transport fares for four years and introduce a new Hopper fare costing £1.50 for unlimited journeys within an hour • Fight against the excessive conversion of office space into homes under permitted development rights • Set guidelines for the Mayor's call-in process and use those powers to speed up the building

The GLA has undertaken a new housing capacity study to inform the next London Plan. This study is known as the London Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) and is prepared in partnership with local planning authorities in London. As part of this process they last month ran a Call for Sites. This allowed stakeholders and individuals to submit potential housing sites for consideration as part of this housing capacity assessment. Site assessments in the London SHLAA are undertaken on large sites (0.25 hectares and more

in size), with housing delivery on smaller sites estimated using average annual trends in housing completions. However, sites under 0.25 hectares in size could still be submitted as part of the Call for Sites and these smaller sites will be passed on to the relevant local planning authority to inform their Local Plan preparation and site allocations and may be used by the GLA for research purposes.

Rise in new office starts Over the past 18 months construction activity in the City of London has nearly doubled from 77m ft.² in late 2014. Around 42 per cent of the total space under construction is already pre-let – up from 38 per cent in the previous six months. These are the results of the latest Deloitte Real Estate Survey published in May. Since the Referendum additional projects have been put on hold as a result of the ensuing uncertainty. ■

WINNER BEST AGENCY PUBLICATION 2016 IN2 SABRE AWARDS EMEA

The number 1 agency working in PR and Communications in the built environment

Subscribe to our award-winning free monthly news magazine on our website

londoncommunications.co.uk

@LDNcomms

020 7612 8480

Issue 98 JULY-SEPTEMBER 2016

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:15 Page 22

BRIEFING | PLANNING PERFORMANCE

65 per cent increase in dwellings added to ne supply through change of use between 2013 Latest planning performance by English districts and London boroughs: planning applications in England: January to March 2016 OVERVIEW Between January to March 2016, district level planning authorities in England received 119,700 applications for planning permission, down one per cent on the corresponding quarter of 2015 and granted 86,200 decisions, up three per cent from the same quarter last year. They decided 82 per cent of major applications within 13 weeks or the agreed time, up from 77 per cent a year earlier, and granted 11,300 residential applications, down one per cent on a year earlier. Some 9,000 applications for prior approval for permitted development rights were received during January to March 2016, up six per cent from the same quarter of 2015. Of those applications 7,400 were approved without having to go through the full planning process, up seven per

Planning in London

cent on a year earlier. District level planning authorities in England • received 119,700 applications for planning permission, down one per cent on the corresponding quarter of 2015; • granted 86,200 decisions, up three per cent from the same quarter in 2015; this is equivalent to 88 per cent of decisions, up one percentage point on the same quarter of 2015; • decided 82 per cent of major applications within 13 weeks or the agreed time, up from 77 per cent a year earlier; and • granted 11,300 residential applications, down one per cent on a year earlier. In the year ending March 2016, district level planning authorities:

• granted 372,600 decisions, up three per cent from the figure for the year ending March 2015; and • granted 46,700 decisions on residential developments: 5,900 for major developments and 40,800 for minors. 9,000 applications for prior approval for permitted development rights were received during January to March 2016, up six per cent from the same quarter of 2015; 7,400 of those applications were approved without having to go through the full planning process, up seven per cent on a year earlier; The number of applications received for prior approval was 41,000 in 2015/16 and 36,400 in 2014/15, up from 15,700 in 2013/14 and 7,300 in 2012/13.

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:16 Page 23

net housing 3/14 and 14/15 RIGHT: Number of planning applications received, decided and granted by district level planning authorities

Applications During January to March 2016, authorities undertaking district level planning in England received 119,700 applications for planning permission, down one per cent on the corresponding quarter in 2015. In the year ending March 2016, authorities received 474,400 planning applications, up less than one per cent from 473,800 in the year ending March 2015. (Table 1). Planning decisions Authorities reported 98,400 decisions on planning applications in January to March 2016, an increase of three per cent on 95,500 decisions in the same quarter of the previous year. In the year ending March 2016, authorities decided 424,700 planning applications, an increase of four per cent

Planning decisions by development type, speed of decision and local planning authority: January to March 2016, Table 131 can be found with all tables and figures here: https://goo.gl/NokGMt Source: DCLG/ONS >>>

>>>

Issue 98 JULY-SEPTEMBER 2016

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:16 Page 24

BRIEFING | PLANNING PERFORMANCE

>>> compared to the year ending March 2015. Applications granted During January to March 2016, authorities granted 86,200 permissions, up three per cent from the same quarter in 2015. Authorities granted 88 per cent of all decisions, up one percentage point on March quarter 2015. Overall, 83 per cent of major and minor decisions were granted. The percentage of decisions granted varied widely between local planning authorities, ranging from 30 to 100 per cent for major developments, 54 to 100 per cent for minor developments and 45 to 100 per cent for other developments. Over the 12 months to March 2016, 372,600 applications were granted, up three per cent from the year to March 2015. Authorities granted 88 per cent of all decisions in the year to March 2016, unchanged from the year to March 2015. Historical context Table 1 shows that, since 2005, the numbers of applications received, decisions made and applications granted have each followed a similar pattern. As well as the usual within- year pattern of peaks in the Summer and troughs in the Winter, there was a clear downward trend during the 2008 economic downturn, with figures remaining broadly level since then. Figure 1 shows that the numbers of applications

Planning in London

received in recent years are some way below the peak of 689,000 in 2004/05. Speed of decisions In January to March 2016, 82 per cent of major applications were decided within 13 weeks or within the agreed time for Planning Performance Agreements (PPAs), Extensions of Time (EoTs) and Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), compared with 77 per cent in the March quarter 2015. In the March quarter 2016, 78 per cent of minor applications and 86 per cent of other applications were decided within 8 weeks or the agreed time. These figures show increases, compared with 70 per cent and 82 per cent a year earlier respectively. The percentage of decisions made in time varied widely between local planning authorities, ranging from 10 to 100 per cent for major developments, 24 to 100 per cent for minor developments and 34 to 100 per cent for other developments. Legislation allows planning applications to be submitted directly to the Secretary of State if a local planning authority has been designated on the basis of under-performance. One of the two criteria set out in Improving planning performance: criteria for designation (revised 2015) relates to the speed of decision-making. Because deciding an application on time can include the use of a performance agreement, the

calculation of the proportion of decisions made within the agreed time was changed to include PPAs from April 2008 for major and some â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;otherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; developments, and to also include agreed EoTs and EIAs from April 2013. Applications since April 2014 for minor developments and for changes of use, householder developments and advertisements can now also be recorded as having included a performance agreement. There has been a marked increase in the use of agreements since early 2013, although the increases have slowed down in recent quarters, and the number dropped in the latest available quarter. In reality this has been driven by both the additional scope for recording them and their additional use. The proportion of major decisions subject to an agreement was 53 per cent during January to March 2016, up from six per cent in the April to June quarter of 2013 In the March quarter 2016, a total of 17,000 decisions involving performance agreements were made, of which 14,400 (85 per cent) were decided on time. In the March quarter of 2016, 86 per cent of major development decisions involving performance agreements were made on time. In comparison, 77 per cent of major decisions not involving performance agreements were made within the statutory time limit of 13 weeks. Residential decisions The figures collected by the department are num-

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:16 Page 25

bers 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 approvals from a contractor. The latest figures show that approval for 265,000 homes was given in the year to 31 March 2016, compared to a revised figure of 263,000 homes approved in the year to 31 December 2015.4 The number of homes granted permission during the year to 31 March 2016 was eight per cent higher than in the year to 31 March 2015. These figures are provided to give contextual information, and have not been designated as National Statistics. Regarding the figures reported on PS1/2 returns, in January to March 2016, 15,100 decisions were made on applications for residential developments, unchanged from March quarter 2015. Of these, 11,300 residential applications were granted, down one per cent from the March quarter 2015. The number of major residential decisions decreased by five per cent from January to March 2015 to January to March 2016 - to 1,800 - while the number of minor residential decisions increased slightly from 13,200 to 13,300. Authorities granted 81 per cent of major residential applications, up from 79 per cent in the March quarter 2015, deciding 78 per cent of them within 13 weeks or the agreed time. Authorities granted 74 per cent of decisions on minor residential applications, deciding 74 per cent of them within 8 weeks or the agreed time. In the year ending March 2016, authorities granted 5,900 major and 40,800 minor residential applications, with 79 and 74 per cent of applications being granted respectively.

Of the 9,000 applications reported in the January to March quarter of 2016, prior approval was not required for 5,100, and permission was granted for 2,300 and refused for 1,700. This means that 7,400 applications were approved without having to go through the full planning process: either because prior approval was not required, or because permission was granted. This resulted in an overall acceptance rate of 82 per cent. 69 per cent of applications (6,200) related to larger householder extensions, with 8 per cent relating to office to residential changes and 7 per cent relating to agricultural to residential changes. The total number of applications reported during January to March 2016 (9,000) was six per cent greater than in January to March 2015. Within this total, the number of granted applications increased by 17 per cent, the number of refusals remained unchanged and the number of cases where prior approval was not required increased by three per cent. Taking i) granted applications and ii) those for which prior approval was not required together, 7,400 applications were approved without having to go through the full planning process, up seven per cent on a year earlier Within the overall increase of six percent in the reported number of applications between January to March 2015 and January to March 2016: • Larger householder extensions increased by one per cent • office to residential changes dropped by 15 per cent • agricultural to residential changes dropped by 11 per cent; and • there was a 111 per cent increase in the ‘All others’ category, partly due to the creation of several

new categories with effect from 15 April 2015, including storage and distribution centres to residential, and amusement arcades/centres and casinos to residential. The overall acceptance rate for the eight quarters ending March 2016 was 82 per cent. The rate initially dropped from 85 per cent in the first quarter to 79 per cent in the third quarter, but has since stabilised at 82 per cent in the latest three quarters. Overall during the eight quarters ending March 2016, district planning authorities reported 77,500 applications for prior approvals for permitted developments. For 44,900 (58 per cent) of them prior approval was not required, 18,400 (24 per cent) were granted and 14,200 (18 per cent) were refused (Figure 4). To put these recent figures into context, Figure 5 shows how the number of determination applications received remained broadly stable at around 5,000 to 8,000 per year from 2004/05 to 2012/13, but approximately doubled to 15,700 in 2013/14, following the creation of the new permitted development right categories in May 2013.Since then, there have been 36,400 applications in 2014/15 and 41,000 in 2015/16. The quarterly pattern since April 2014 reflects a combination of both: i) the introduction of new permitted development right categories in May 2013 and April 2015; and ii) the seasonal peaks and troughs that have previously been observed for planning applications, as shown in Figure 1. This significant increase in numbers of applications appears to be consistent with the 65 per cent increase in the number of dwellings added to the net housing supply through change of use between 2013/14 and 2014/15, as reported in the Net supply of housing in England: 2014 to 2015.8. ■

Householder developments Decisions on householder developments increased by seven per cent, from 45,000 decisions in the March quarter 2015 to 48,000 decisions in the corresponding quarter, in 2016, when they accounted for 49 per cent of all decisions. Authorities granted 90 per cent of these applications and decided 88 per cent within 8 weeks or the agreed time. Prior approvals for permitted developments Following the creation in May 2013 of some additional permitted development right categories and consultation with local authorities, the department increased the level of detailed information on prior approvals for permitted developments collected on the PS1 return with effect from 1 April 2014.

Issue 98 JULY-SEPTEMBER 2016

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:16 Page 26

BRIEFING | CLIPBOARD

CLIPBOARD

Millbank Tower to become flats and hotel John McAslan + Partners’ scheme for the 32storey Millbank Tower was granted planning approval in April. The proposal will comprehensively refurbish and enhance the Grade II listed building, securing its long term future as an important heritage asset. Comprising 207 apartments, predominantly one and two bedroom residential units, but providing some family-sized apartments, the project also includes a 150-bedroom hotel, as well as public realm, public gardens and a private landscaped garden for residents to the rear of the site. Close to Tate Britain, the scheme will also support Westminster Council’s Strategic Cultural Area designation, with the addition of a new cultural facility located at the southern end of the podium. The project has been developed through successful dialogue with statutory authorities and the local community. The urban context for neighbouring residents will be significantly improved, removing the existing multi-storey car park which will be replaced with new landscaped gardens. John McAslan, chairman of John McAslan + Partners comments: “Our proposals will secure the long term future of this remarkable 20th-century building and we are delighted that Westminster Council has granted planning permission and listed building consent for its conversion to residential use.” “Completed in 1963 to designs by Ronald Ward & Partners, the Tower is one of London’s most significant 20th Century buildings. The tower, the tallest building in London until surpassed by the G.P.O Tower in 1965, features high quality glass curtain walling which will be replaced with an exact facsimile. Millbank Tower was the first UK building to employ projecting stainless steel mullions - this is a very exciting opportunity for the practice to refurbish such an innovative and sophisticated building.” – comments Paddy Pugh, director of conservation + planning at John McAslan + Partners.

Planning in London

Housing zones coming London mayor Sadiq Khan has launched a formal review of the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC), the mayoral corporation established by Khan’s predecessor. He wants to be reassured the organisation charged with regenerating a huge swathe of west London delivers the maximum amount of affordable housing. A new High Speed 2 (HS2) and Crossrail station complex is due to be constructed at Old Oak Common by 2026 and publicly owned land is being vested in the OPDC. Khan is concerned at the price-tag and how the costs of remediation will impact on the pace and scale of development. The OPDC has full planning powers for an area of 650-hectares of land in the boroughs of Hammersmith & Fulham, Ealing and Brent. Meanwhile is a separate but related move Khan has announced a review of Housing Zones in the capital, again with an aim of increasing the delivery of affordable homes. Separately, Hackney mayor Jules Pipe has urged City Hall to send the Bishopsgate Goodsyard Scheme back to the boroughs (Tower Hamlets and Hackney) that initially rejected it. Former London mayor Boris Johnson intervened but failed to determine the highly controversial proposals before his term ended.support the delivery of developments.

Article 4 Direction for basements in RBKC The Council made an Article 4 Direction on 15 April 2015 to remove permitted development rights for basement extensions to single dwelling houses across the Borough – the Article 4 Direction defines the rights that will be removed. The Council consulted on the Article 4 Direction between 24 April and 8 June 2015. The Article 4 Direction was confirmed by Key Decision on 2 March 2016 and will come into force on 28 April 2016. It will apply to the entire area of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:16 Page 27

Outer London boroughs are key to solving London’s housing crisis Boroughs such as Croydon are key to solving London’s housing crisis according to the borough’s acting chief executive Jo Negrini. She stressed the importance of creating a whole place and not just a dormitory suburb at a panel discussion on the town held at the London Real Estate Forum at Berkeley Square. But with new Deputy Mayor of Housing James Murray having spoken of the need to accelerate housing schemes across the capital, Ms Negrini said the Greater London Authority needed to look beyond zones one and two for their solutions. “I was at James Murray’s session and it was interesting that when the panel were talking about dealing with London’s housing crisis they talk about central London and about green belt – it’s almost like they’ve forgotten that there’s a whole ring of outer London boroughs where a lot of the solutions can be delivered,” she said. “Croydon is the biggest borough and we’ve got an incredible capacity to grow. But as with places like Ealing and Hounslow and Barking there’s a need for a policy response to look at how these centres become economic drivers for a bigger London. “The solutions aren’t in Westminster because you’ll never get the kind of housing that numbers needs. The solution is in places like Croydon where we’re looking at increasing the number of homes that we have but also the nature of homes that we need for Londoners.” Croydon has put in place an Article 4 direction to counter the huge loss of office space for permitted development as well as creating a Growth Zone to help provide the infrastructure to accommodate the growth taking place in the borough. It has also created Brick by Brick, its own development company, designed to build around 1,000 housing units on small infill sites around the borough. London’s housing crisis can be ameliorated through intensification,” added Ms Negrini. “We’re using our land to deliver the homes that we know the people in Croydon need and we know we can achieve some of the results in terms of solving

some of the housing crisis. “We’ve got a proactive planning department which everybody wants to hear, but we want the right kind of development – we’re not going to accept any old rubbish. We’re very clear that to tackle Croydon’s perception everything we do has to be high quality.”

Housing association merger creates new top four housebuilder L&Q, The Hyde Group and East Thames are set to merge, with the new organisation planning to deliver 100,000 new homes across London and the south east. The proposed merger of the three housing associations will create one of the country’s top four largest housebuilders, the organisations said, at an investment level of £25 billion over the next ten years and with the ability to deliver 35,000 more homes than each company could have achieved alone. The new company will also be the country’s largest affordable homes provider, the London organisations added. Half of the 100,000 new homes will be for people on lower incomes, with a split of 25,000 affordable homes available for first time buyers, 25,000 for affordable rent and the remaining 50,000 for market rent and sale. The new organisation will also be the manager of 135,000 homes. The merger will also mean the creation of other facilities and functions, including a new training academy. This will offer nationally accredited apprenticeship schemes, and “greater career development opportunities” for staff. East Thames’ care expertise will see the creation of a large care and support subsidiary, and

investment in a new offer for vulnerable and older people. East Thames will become a subsidiary of the new company. The merged firms said that the merger would deliver efficiency savings of £50 million within five years. David Montague, L&Q’s CEO, said: “Our plans will allow us to tackle the housing crisis head on, driving greater efficiency, building more homes, creating beautiful new places and sustainable, independent communities. At the heart of our united mission will be the continued provision of affordable homes for those in need.” – thesource@gladman.co.uk.

Hackney’s enforcement backlog An investigation of Hackney Council by the Local Government Ombudsman has uncovered a backlog of 1,500 planning enforcement cases, some dating back to 2001, reports the Planning Portal. This came to light after a man complained to the watchdog that the East London planning authority had spent more than five years unsuccessfully trying to get his neighbour to remove an unauthorised extension. The neighbour failed to comply with orders made by the Crown Court, continued to build, and prevented council contractors from removing the unlawful extension, which neighbours describe as an ‘eyesore’. The investigation found the complainant had repeatedly had to chase the council for action. Local Government Ombudsman Jane Martin said planning authorities must keep track of enforcement action, and follow through when they promise to act. She recommended that Hackney should apologise to the complainant, keep him updated on the extension’s removal and pay £2,500 as compensation for injustice. A spokesperson for the planning authority said: “The council had already taken action against the unauthorised development prior to receiving the Ombudsman report and will fully meet their recommendations, all of which apart from one were initiated by the council before the Ombudsman reported.” The council has since allocated two officers to go through all historic open cases to decide what further action should be taken. ■

Issue 98 JULY-SEPTEMBER 2016

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:16 Page 28

BRIEFING | CLIPBOARD

Mayor Khan unveils new City Hall team Newly-elected Mayor of London Sadiq Khan has unveiled his team at City Hall, including three new Deputy Mayors covering crucial policy areas. Statutory Deputy Mayor - Joanne McCartney Mr Khan has appointed Enfield and Haringey AM Joanne McCartney as his statutory Deputy Mayor, without an area-specific portfolio. Widely seen as a stable and safe pair of hands with a strong track record in London politics, the former barrister has special expertise in employment law, but since turning to politics has focused on issues such as community safety, children and young people, jobs and skills, and the environment. A long-serving member of the Assembly, she was first elected in 2004 and has pursued an extensive political career including stints as Chair of the Health and Public Services and Police and Crime Committees, as well as a member of several other Committees. She previously served as a councillor in Enfield from 1998 to 2006. She has written extensively on issues of policing and national security, attacking cuts to the Metropolitan Police Service and warning about the importance of responding to the terrorist threat. Deputy Mayor for Housing - James Murray As Deputy Mayor for Housing, former Islington councillor James Murray will be expected to advise on the use of planning powers accorded to the Mayor, alongside delivering Mr Khans’s commitment to build “genuinely affordable” housing in the capital. Previously Executive Councillor in Charge of Housing in Islington Borough, the Financial Times has suggested Mr Murray’s appointment could cause “nervousness in the property sector”, as developer representatives said he had “a history of blocking developments that lack high levels of affordable and social housing”. Mr Murray’s legacy at Islington Council has been characterised by a strong drive for affordable housing in the area, and chimes with the dominant theme of Mr Khan’s candidacy. Writing in the New

Statesman last year, Mr Murray offered his thoughts on planning powers in the capital, and the impact on affordable housing, commenting that the next elected Mayor should “reset the terms for dealing with developers, through clear affordable housing requirements that are robustly enforced”, to adjust land values. However, this week the Evening Standard claimed that Sadiq Khan was “dealt a blow” after Neale Coleman, considered an expert on housing, planning and regeneration policy , quit three weeks into his leadership. He had been tasked with assisting with Mr Khan’s transition into office. Mr Coleman, Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn’s former Head of Policy and Rebuttal and former adviser to Ken Livingstone, reportedly left the position after Mr Khan was unwilling to extend his temporary contract. Deputy Mayor for Policing - Sophie Linden Specifically responsible for policing, Sophie Linden is a career politician and public affairs professional with links to the New Labour administration. Having worked as a Special Adviser to Home Secretary David Blunkett, she later went to work as a Director at Bell Pottinger. She then made a name for herself in the London Borough of Hackney, working as Deputy Mayor and taking responsibility for crime and community safety. Her appointment will be subject to a confirmation hearing with the Policing and Crime Committee, Given her connections to the past Labour administration, Ms Linden’s appointment has been viewed as a sign that Mr Khan is taking a broad approach to his appointments, securing support from members of the party’s various different ideological factions. Deputy Mayor for Transport - Val Shawcross Despite rumours that he would be given a Deputy Mayorship, former Labour Transport Secretary and Chair of the Infrastructure Commission, Lord Adonis, was charged with responsibility for Crossrail 2, while veteran London Assembly Member Val Shawcross was appointed Deputy Mayor for Transport and Deputy Chair of Transport for London (TfL).

Having served in the Assembly from 2000 to 2016, Ms Shawcross was Chair of the Transport Committee for eight years, as well as taking the role of Chair of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. Her considerable experience led the Guardian to suggest she would “command respect in TfL circles” and hold “a sound grasp of the mysteries of TfL’s finances”. Moving to take over as Chair the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) was London Assembly Member Fiona Twycross. An AM for the Londonwide List since 2012, Ms Twycross is keenly aware of the current challenges facing the service, braced for further closures and cuts. She also held the position of Vice Chair of the Authority from 2013-2016. n ©Remarkable Engagement www.remarkablegroup.co.uk

Runway landing delayed again A decision on airport expansion in south-eastern England is to be delayed until "at least October", Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin has said, reported the BBC. The move follows the UK's Brexit vote, which triggered a leadership contest in the Conservative government. Heathrow and Gatwick airports have been vying with each other over building an extra runway. Heathrow boss John Holland-Kaye said expansion "must be a key building block in the government's Brexit plan. It will allow British exporters to trade with all the growing markets of the world, strengthening Britain's position as one of the great trading nations. And at a time of uncertainty, a £16bn privately funded infrastructure investment will create jobs and growth across the UK." But Gatwick Airport chief executive Stewart Wingate said: "The enormous pollution [of] both noise and air quality that Heathrow inflicts on hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions, it's this issue that politicians are going to have to grapple with. If you look at Gatwick, we have a tiny fraction of the environmental impact of Heathrow, yet you get all of the same economic benefits, all of the same connections to short haul and long haul destinations, all at a cheaper price." ■

Next meeting of the London Planning & Development Forum is on 14th September at 2.30pm, our host is Michael Edwards, at UCL, room LG01, Central House, 14 Upper Woburn Place WC1H 0NN Please advise Hon Sec Drummond Robson if you would like to attend: robplan@btconnect.com. Visitors are welcome.

Planning in London

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:16 Page 29

¡PILLO! Google is getting Into the citymaking business Google's parent company Alphabet has futuristic plans to plant infrastructure for driverless cars, data sensors, connected vehicles, and public WiFi and watch cities grow. Alphabet's new "urban innovation" subsidiary Sidewalk Labs is charged with bringing the utopian concept to life. Building a city from nothing could help rethink government, social policy and data driven management, as well as test solutions to cybersecurity and privacy concerns. With its foot in just about every facet of modern-day civilization, it's no surprise that Google wants to get into the city-making business too. Google’s man behind the curtain is Sidewalk CEO Dan Doctoroff, a former CEO of Bloomberg LP and a former deputy mayor of New York City. There's no doubt Doctoroff is a visionary, much like how Walt Disney conceived EPCOT as a Petri dish for high-tech living in the mid-1960s. During his New York stint. Doctoroff rezoned Manhattan's far West Side and helped transform Brooklyn into a new housing hub. Also on Sidewalk Labs' star-studded dream team: Craig Nevill-Manning, the founder and former director of Google's New York City-based engineering team, was tapped as CTO to build prototypes and new products for cities. At the moment, Sidewalk's big task is its $40million "Smart Cities" competition with the Department of Transportation to speed up the adoption of driverless cars. BELOW: Garden town replaces Eco-City?

A ‘vanguard’ for garden cities Plans have been submitted for 1,500 homes at Oxfordshire 'garden town'. Housebuilder Redrow and Wates Developments submitted the outline plans to Cherwell District Council for the Wretchwick Green project. The development would include 450 affordable homes, a primary school, a community centre, retail space and a day nursery. There would also be 60 hectares of green space, including sports facilities and ecological enhancement. The council’s local plan, adopted last summer, provides for five strategic development sites around Bicester. The Wretchwick Green site is one of these strategic allocations. Another site, on the north-western edge of the town is allocated for a 6,000-home "eco town". Cherwell District Council councillor Barry Wood said last year that Bicester would become a "vanguard" for garden cities after the town was awarded "garden town" status by the government.

homes. Ministers have said for such large new settlements “it will be desirable for the Local Enterprise Partnership to be supportive”. The prospectus said that in exchange for guaranteed housing delivery, ministers will consider delivering “planning freedoms” including ensuring there is greater ability to resist speculative residential planning applications and to continue to protect the green belt. The government has promised a tailored package of support including a limited amount of funding over the next two years. It has also committed to updating the New Towns Act 1981 to ensure there is a fit for purpose vehicle for the delivery of new garden villages. Ministers have already supported proposals for new garden communities in Bicester, Didcot, Ebbsfleet, North Essex and North Northamptonshire. Together these have the potential to deliver over 100,000 new homes

Smile! Prospectus for new wave of ‘garden settlements’ published by the government The government has published its prospectus for a new wave of garden settlements. Ministers are stressing that these new garden villages and towns must be locally led, must provide for ‘starter homes’ and must establish “a clear and distinct sense of identity”. The prospectus emphasised that the government is not looking to support places “which merely use ‘garden’ as a convenient label”. It added: “We do not want to impose a set of development principles on local areas. But we will want to see evidence of attractive, well designed places with local support”. The first part of the prospectus has invited expressions of interest by the end of next month for new garden villages of between 1,500 and 10,000 new homes. At this stage ministers are expecting to support up to 12 proposals. Ministers are also looking for interest in new garden towns and cities of more than 10,000 new

"If you're not likable you're lost… I'm going to be honest and mention something architects don't do brilliantly: it's called smiling." – Miffa Salter, executive coach at Urbancana speaking at an RIBA seminar on winning work for architects.

Space into money "The chief function of the city," wrote the urban historian Lewis Mumford in 1961, "is to convert power into form, energy into culture, dead matter into the living symbols of art, biological reproduction into social creativity." The chief function of London, today, it would seem, is to convert space into money. Is that ambition enough? So asked Edwin Heathcote in the FT Weekend Magazine when concluding an illustrated feature on the City of London's booming construction activity. ■

Issue 98 JULY-SEPTEMBER 2016

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:16 Page 30

BRIEFING | LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM

New planning Act, new mayor... Hon. Sec. Drummond Robson minuted the June Forum at Monday 13th June at City Hall. Our Host was Colin Wilson. Full minutes at planninginlondon.com > LP&DF Brian Waters introduced our speakers: Riëtte Ousthuizen, Planning Partner, HTA Design LLP and Vicky Fowler, Partner at Berwin Leighton Paisner LLP who kindly came instead of her colleague Christian Drage who had prepared a presentation which she used. Riëtte and Vicky jointly generated the discussion on the New Housing and Planning Act 2016. Lisa Fermaner spoke about New Neighbourhood Planning and Neighbourhood and Planning Bill. John Lett set out some of the key planning parameters for any development of policy under the new Mayor, Sadiq Khan. Sara Dilmamode of Citiesmode talked about the “We Plan London” information service and the thinking behind it. DISCUSSION TOPICS Discussion of Planning Reforms under the New Act. Jointly by Riette Oosthuizen Director HTA and Vicky Fowler. The following notes try to combine their two presentations which inevitably overlapped but from different perspectives, and the minutes too have some repetition. Duncan Bowie also added some additional material based on his tracking of the Bill. The Act received royal assent 12th May 2016 Since the Localism Act 2011 (‘devolving planning to LPA’s and communities’): • Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 • Infrastructure Act 2015 • Housing and Planning Act 2016 • Neighbourhood Planning and Infrastructure Bill Consultation on Technical Changes, Starter Homes Consultation, Consultation on Upward Extensions in London, Expressions of Interest in Estate Regeneration etc. New Homes in England. Despite the focus in the Localism Act on more power to local authorities and communities, we have seen an awful lot of intervention in the planning system by Central government and they are not finished yet. Most parts of the Act are coming into force on dates yet to be specified in regulations

Planning in London

Act introduced to: ‘kick start a national crusade to get 1 million homes built by 2020’ ‘to give housebuilders and decision-makers the tools and confidence to provide more homes and further streamline the planning system to accelerate their delivery’. Objectives and the intended effects behind the Act • Getting the nation building homes faster • make it easier for housebuilders to identify land which at a local level is agreed to be suitable for housing. • making it easier and faster for planning permission for housing to be granted; • making SoS interventions in the Local Plan process smarter so there are more local plans in place to inform decisions. • Aims to Help more people buy their own home Starter Homes First introduced 2014 – home ownership for 1st time buyers – exception policy LPA legal to promote Starter Homes – plan and decision making Starter Homes 1st before other forms of affordable housing. It is all in regulations yet to be published and due by 12th July; even the Chapter can be amended... Industrial and commercial sites – if classified as 100 per cent starter homes, they do not need planning permission, plus no S106 or CIL (although government still to issue regs on the latter). Policies will need to identify a stipulated per cent of starter homes What is a Starter Home? • New dwelling/part of building not previously occupied for use as single dwelling • Includes conversions and office to residential* • First time buyers 23-40; regulations could amend and also restrict to nationality • Discount of ‘at least’ 20 per cent of MV but no guideline price • Funded by immunity from S106 and CIL • New build homes available to ‘qualifying firsttime buyers’ at a minimum discount of 20 per

cent and always less than £250k outside Greater London and £450k in Greater London • Regs can amend price caps. • 5-8 year restriction on re-sales and lettings yet to be confirmed in regs. Statutory duty on LPAs to promote Starter Homes: New category of affordable housing for purposes of NPPF. Starter Homes Requirement Draft regulations propose 20 per cent Starter Homes on most residential developments where minimum of 10 units or more than 0.5ha Subject to off-site commuted sums where LPA approves These requirements must be met or application is automatically refused. General viability exemption: Specialist housing exemption, potentially affordable housing led estate regeneration, purpose built student housing, custom build and Rural Exeption Sites Regulations to specify: • the Starter Homes requirement • To be secured through s106 agreements • No specific allowance for local variations in viability but general viability exemption in tightly defined circumstances. Starter Homes Implications: Emphasis on home ownership but what about majority dependency on private rent? Genuinely wider definition of affordable housing? Many schemes in London struggle to get to 20 per cent affordable housing (+ effect of dwindling supplies of social rent/affordable rent in favour of shared ownership if developer can afford) Affordability of the London price cap – need substantial income to access home of £450K Overall dwindling affordable housing supply as after 5-8 years returns to market housing (together with LPA duty to sell high value housing stock and RP’s Right to Buy) Largely self-enforcing regime: Sales and letting restrictions: Draft regulations propose sales within specified period of 5 (or 8 years) other than a qualifying first-time buyer subject to a tapered discount Starter Homes – Secretary of State interven-

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:16 Page 31

Image: HTA Design

tion: Intervention by SoS if LPAs fail to carry out functions in relation to Starter Homes SoS may make compliance direction where incompatible policies in local development documents directing LPAs not to take into account incompatible policies when taking certain planning decisions Are Starter homes a boost or blow to housing delivery? Viability - affordable housing policy and statutory Starter Home requirements to be met – may prevent councils from delivering other forms of affordable housing and home ownership products Reduction in the supply of other forms of affordable housing?Affects cash flow; Distortion of market. Regulations yet to be laid means Manifesto commitment to build 200,000 Starter Homes over course of this Parliament by 2020 likely to missed

Custom Build • LPA keep register of interest in self build and custom build homes • Sites 1 to 4 units • LPA duty to ensure sufficient serviced permissioned plots available to meet demand • Impact on LPA small sites programmes? • Does it make delivery easier for those interested in custom/self build? Permission in Principle (PiP) – what is it? Section 150 of the Act • The grant of PiP either (1) on land allocated for development in ‘qualifying documents’ (eg brownfield register, development plan or neighbourhood plan) or (2) on application. • It’s not a planning permission – PiP & technical details consent = planning permission • PiP initially limited to housing or housing led developments PiP: How it will work? (1)

Three routes by which PiP may be granted for housing: • For brownfield sites registered by LPAs as suitable for housing • Nationwide Development Order for sites allocated for housing in Neighbourhood and Local Plans • Consent grant following an application for PiP granted at time ‘qualifying document’ is adopted or made by LPA and requirements for type and scope of development (to be set out in secondary legislation) satisfied. PiPs granted through plans and registers proposed to last for a maximum of 5 years, but may be some local variation. PiPs granted on application to expire either after 3 years or 1 year Pip: How it will work (2) ‘In principle’ matters – core elements underpinning suitability of site for residential development to include: >>>

Minutes of the meeting on Monday13th June at City Hall. Our Host was Colin Wilson Brian Waters (Chairman) Andrew Rogers: Association of Consultant Architects Colin Rumsey: (Formerly LB Enfield) Duncan Bowie: University of Westminster Jessica Ferm: UCL John Lett: GLA Judith Ryser: Isocarp/Ugb/Cityscope Europe Lisa Fermaner: City of Westminster LB Michael Bach: London Forum Michael Edwards: UCL Michael Coupe: London Society

Nicky Gavron: London Assembly Member (Part) Peter Eversden: London Forum Riëtte Oosthuizen: HTA Design LLP Ron Heath: Living Architects Sara Dilmamode: Citiesmode Tim Wacher Vicky Fowler: BLP Law Tom Ball: London Forum Drummond Robson: Honorary Secretary and Robson Planning Apologies were received from Alastair Gaskin (Hon Treasurer), Bob Dolata, Chris Alda, David Bradley, Jonathan Manns, and Tom Ball

Issue 98 JULY-SEPTEMBER 2016

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:16 Page 32

BRIEFING | LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM

• Location – redline plan identifying location and site parameters • Uses – housing led uses, may include retail, community and commercial uses forming part of a housing led development • Amount of residential development – PiP to specify minimum and maximum level of acceptable residential development Local and national planning policy must be considered in the grant of PiP and technical details consent. EIA and Appropriate Assessments to be carried out at PiP stage if required. PiP: Allocated Sites in Local or Neighbourhood Plans Power for SoS to make Development Order granting PiP to land allocated for development in a ‘qualifying document’, which includes Local or Neighbourhood Plans Development Order to set out what type and scope of development will be granted PiP Since PiP will identify both the location, use and amount of residential development as well as parameters of the technical details, consent could result in quite detailed plan policies PiP: Technical Details Consent (1): Full planning permission granted through technical details consent – PiP to describe parameters for technical details Technical details may include design, access, layout, provision of infrastructure, open space, affordable housing, site specific matters. Technical details consent may be granted subject to conditions and planning obligations (no conditions attached to PiP). Principle of development cannot be reconsidered at the technical details stage PiP: Technical Details Consent (2) Approved or refused only on grounds of previously

Planning in London

unconsidered technical matters – right of appeal Consultation on technical details not proposed (optional). Public consultation only at PiP stage Documents: design statement (layout, access & architectural detail) & an impact statement (assessments eg contaminated land, flood risk; & mitigation eg remediation & drainage schemes) PiP: boost or blow to housing delivery? (1) • Greater certainty at an early stage about whether land is suitable for development • Should enable developers to secure funding earlier in the planning process • Avoids heavy investment in the finer detail of a scheme before site suitability determined • Multiple assessments of site suitability during planning process avoided • Leading to faster start to development once technical details approved • Timing to determination: PiP (minor) 5 wks, technical details (minor) 5 wks, technical details (major) 10 wks PiP: boost or blow to housing delivery? (2) • Existing site allocations in adopted development plan documents cannot grant permission in principle, so authorities will need to prepare new planning documents if new sites are to benefit from the proposal. • There is a need to deal with EIA at the PIP stage. If there are no conditions or section 106 it is difficult to secure the mitigation that make schemes acceptable in environmental terms, at least on applications. • PiPs still locally driven and it is often the detail on major schemes that removes opposition or concern PiP: boost or blow to housing delivery? (3) • In practice brownfield registers do not currently

exist so full benefit of measures will take time • Potential increase in legal challenges – will be important to ensure the impacts are adequately assessed and addressed • Measures will only apply to site allocations in future plans, not retrospectively • LPAs not bound by principles of the PiP when determining technical details consent where PiP has existed for a long period and there has been a material change in circumstances (subject to future consultation). PiP: boost or blow to housing development? (4) Whether major developments can apply for PiP. Any benefit over outline permission? PiP/technical details application cost unknown but “consistent with similar types of applications in the planning system” Unclear how conditions and infrastructure will be negotiated and provided PiP: mid July; register of particular kinds of land already in force Other changes proposed in the Housing and Planning Act • Minor amendments to Neighourhood Planning Process • SOS step in powers when LPA’s are not preparing local plans fast enough/ Mayor of London powers (already in force) – widened scope of referral and call in powers in relation to local plan progress • LPA to apply to Gvt (SoS) for a ‘planning freedoms scheme’ – disapply planning provisions to facilitate increase in amount of housing, subject to local consultation • Financial benefits in committee reports – whether or not material to the application + has it

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:16 Page 33

taken into account the Neighbourhood Plan if applicable? • NSIP and housing (limited to 500 homes initially) e.g. related to HS2 or Crossrail 2. • Processing of planning applications by alternative providers – not determination (so validation rather than processing) • PiP (Permission in Principle) • Wonderful news for those wishing to increase land value, but is it delivery focussed? Brownfield Registers (1) Power for regulations to require LPAs to hold and maintain up-to-date registers of brownfield sites suitable for housing Land must satisfy prescribed criteria before entry onto brownfield register (eg available in near future for housing, capable of supporting 5+ dwellings & capable of development). Brownfield Registers (2) Register in two parts: First part: brownfield land that meets prescribed criteria; Second part: list of land from first part suitable for PiP and which has been consulted on. LPAs to have regard to development plan, national policies and SoS’s advice and guidance before land can be entered on register LPAs may be given discretion to exclude land from register that otherwise satisfies criteria LPAs expected to include all sites considered suitable irrespective of their planning status. EIA and SEA considerations: Brownfield Registers (3); Register entries to include: Site ref / name / address; Estimate of number of homes the site would support (preferably a range); Planning

status; Ownership; “any other information considered useful” eg site constraints and site history. Centralisation of Intervention SoS’s power to intervene in neighbourhood planning; Step-in powers for SoS in making of development plan documents (used in May 2016 for first time on Birmingham Development Plan because of revision to Green Belt boundary) Planning applications can made directly to SoS if LPA designated for poor performance; Centralisation of intervention: boost or blow to housing delivery? Step-in powers for SoS in making of development plan documents used in May 2016 for first time on Birmingham Development Plan because of revision to Green Belt boundary to allow 6,000 new homes Local Plan approved by Inspector following inquiry; SoS Direction prevents adoption until resolution; Inclusion of ‘related housing development’ in Development Consent Orders (DCOs); Power for SoS to grant development consent for housing linked to NSIP application. DCLG Guidance to set out details Draft Guidance issued: related housing should be within a mile of the NSIP or have a functional or geographical connection to NSIP; maximum amount of housing is 500 houses. Inclusion of ‘related housing development’ in DCOs: boost or blow to housing development?; Housing limits set out in guidance rather than statute so can be easily changed; Proposed limits on housing set too low to be significant ; Requirement for link to NSIP may be difficult to satisfy in practice

Section 106 dispute resolution Framework powers for s106 dispute resolution mechanism. Applicant or LPA may trigger mechanism. SoS to appoint person independent person to determine dispute who will make a binding recommendation on appropriate form of planning obligations to impose. LPA then unable to refuse application due to inadequacy of obligations. S106 dispute resolution: boost or blow to housing development? No right of appeal; Detail deferred to secondary legislation; Could encourage parties to reach agreement independently DISCUSSION No-one around the table could see this piece of legislation as likely to result in more housing in London, with the prospect of a widening shortfall of housing supply and the prospects of greater housing shortage. There was general incredulity verging on disbelief that this legislation would be other than add to the confusing overload of regulation burdening the statute book, and increase the likelihood that building will take place more slowly than ever, and certainly not encourage London’s growth, albeit that it could possibly facilitate urban extensions outside London. There was little hope that the forthcoming regulations would generate any simple clarity either. As usual there is far too much emphasis on process at the expense of understanding how to achieve worthwhile outcomes. It seemed worth asking why this legislation had been enacted at all, taking extensive Parliamentary time only to make development planning more opaque. Clearly it is not likely to result in more home ownership. Is it that planning and its realisation have become too complex for >>>

Issue 98 JULY-SEPTEMBER 2016

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:16 Page 34

BRIEFING | LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM

the law makers ? or the unrealistic belief that planning is simple enough and should be undertaken by lay neighbourhoods without the need for professionals? More cynically is it even a raid on local authority funds? Planning permission can be refused if not meeting 20 per cent target starter homes. This will disregard any assessment of evidence of need. Starter homes first, other forms of affordable housing will be considered next. What will happen to other forms of affordable housing. Can starter homes be considered affordable housing? Includes conversions and office to residential schemes – many are substandard and can now be sold as starter homes as well First time buyers between 25-40 (regulations can change this age bracket and restrict to nationalities). Caps at 450,000 in London, 250,000 elsewhere. Will this apply across London no matter if a penthouse flat vs a studio flat? And will 250k apply across the whole of the UK? Median salary in London is £30K whereas the average house price is £530K or more than 17.5 times annual salary. Clearly starter homes will create many cash flow issues. In case of joint ownership, is it okay if just one of the parties is under 40? Parents buying for their offspring? What if people accept a ‘gift’ towards deposit? Is this okay? Subsidy for UK nationals only? How is this workable? What about one half of the couple? On sale, after 5-8 years, can revert to market housing. In long-term, loss of supply of housing that is affordable. Ability to sell at market value has not been explained yet. Government to say no automatic release to the market. L.As to be responsible for lifting restrictions. In neighbourhood context, neighbourhood is losing out (and subsidizing) because developments not paying S106/CIL for infrastructure/extra services. All sites over 0.5Ha. Qu for clarification: could LPA ask for less than 10 homes to be eligible – decided locally? Will estate regeneration schemes be exempt from starter homes requirement? This would interfere with LA housebuilding programmes. In terms of build to rent in the private renting sector there is likely to be commuted sum requirement. Implications? Cultural shift towards home ownership rather than rent. Question of affordability. Many people can’t access home ownership and are dependent on private rent. Will exclude a lot of people. Many schemes in London struggle to get to the 20 per cent affordable housing requirement. If

Planning in London

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:16 Page 35

there will be an emphasis on starter homes, we will see dwindling of affordable housing supplies. How will regime be enforced? Central Government? Unlikely. Idea is that LPAs should monitor and report on how many starter homes will be delivered. Government to step in if LPA is not fulfilling its duties. Where local plans are not consistent/compliant, there may be interference from SoS. Housebuilders don’t like this – what it is doing to their schemes and cash flow. What happens when it is public land? Exemption for LA estate regeneration, but not otherwise. Provisions for starter homes – but has not come into force yet. Concern about distortion of the market, slowing down housebuilding. Now in a position where we have lost all public subsidy, starter homes requirement and other planning changes in the Act which will reduce ability to secure S106 and CIL. What are chances of Khan achieving much in the way of affordable housing? PiPs: 2 types Allocation PiPs – for land allocated in qualifying documents, including brownfield land register, DPDs, NPDs. Could take 18 months to 2 years to prepare and approve qualifying documents. Application PiPs – application to LPA. Lasts 3 years. What is the advantage? Most schemes get stuck at the design/technical stage. This won’t help. Goes beyond an allocation in a local plan – can specify a few more things. Cannot have S106 conditions attached to it. How does it differ from an outline planning application? Can’t allocate a PiP unless an EiA has been done already. So why not just prepare a planning application with the full suite of documents required. PiPs settle the number of units and ‘use’ only. Without design detail, this is likely to be underambitious in terms of delivery of numbers. Local communities likely to reject unless the design solves issues of concern. Consensus: not likely to be used much in London. Perhaps in an urban extension context. LPAs not likely to have the resources for doing PiPs on infill sites. Expectation is that infill sites would get permission for housing anyway. Huge area for JD and challenge from communities that impact has been assessed This should not affect estate renewal. Shouldn’t be putting sites on the brownfield register if they are ‘zoned’ for employment in the local plan. Definition of a high-value property not yet decided. Will government determine this locally? By postal code or local authority? Will it reflect property type? The London Plan should balance spare B1, B2 and B8 activity more flexibily. >>>

Issue 98 JULY-SEPTEMBER 2016

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:16 Page 36

BRIEFING | LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM

>>> JOHN LETT: TOWARDS A NEW LONDON PLAN Briefing on pressures for growth. Do not yet know what Khan’s response will be. No deputy mayor for Planning as yet. James Murray is deputy mayor for housing, currently covering planning. Speedy review of 2011 plan underway. Due diligence work on NPPF requirements underway. Housing: Population projections coming out with similar figs to further alterations. Approx. 76k p/a increase to 2036. C72k to 2041. Recent growth not just a ‘Blip’ – seems more long term. Hhlds: 40k pa (2036) c46k to 2041? Translate to housing targets? Rule of thumb to handle backlog, add another 10,000. i.e. 56k pa target housebuilding. Local plan expert group – using different methodology. Could give us a bigger number of 75-80k target. We think our approach is more robust. Strong reservations about CLG approach. Trend based population growth in outer London. Employment 4 to 5 independent bodies that have profound employment projections. 700k jobs since last recession. 100k a year approx. (now abating). We take a long-term view of employment growth. Long time series backwards. Main growth is in ‘professional, scientific and technical’. Meeting wider SE at end of the week to talk about implications of housing need being accommodated outside London borders People who move out tend to be families. Older people moving to the south coast – numbers are not that great. Big question – will ageing population stay in London? Possible supply side options: 1. trend based scenario – agglomeration 2. town centre intensification. Major viability issues in knocking down and building at higher densities. Mayor is keen to retain ‘character’ of existing town centres. English Heritage has done some work – 60-70% town centres have some conservation protection. 3. intensification around PTAL (does not take into account Crossrail 2) 4. suburban intensification – this option could deliver significant growth Other supply side options: Industrial co/relocation: Should we continue existing loss? We have 7,000 Ha left, should be losing no more than 40 Ha a year, mostly in the East. We’ve been losing 2-3 times that amount though. Issue then is - are those benchmarks wrong? Could they be more generous? Does a big postin-

Planning in London

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:16 Page 37

dustrial city like London need industrial land? It is affordable business space really, not smokestacks. Could we relocate outside London? Discussing with wider SE. Will express views to new Mayor in July. IA/OA, housing zone expansion: Why are planning approvals in pipeline not being translated into completions. Not just planning’s fault. GLA officers think more complicated. Estate renewal. Government very keen – Lord Adonis promoting. Takes a long-time to realize. Working with the wider SE. Growth/transport corridors. Urban extensions, town centre expansion focused on deprived towns, new towns/garden villages. Fare structures/travel costs need to be considered to incentivize commuting. Composite supply side options. Crossrail 2, bakerloo line extension. Scope for further intensification/renewal. No ref to green belt – mayor has made his position clear on this. Some tough choices will need to be made. Next steps Informal consultation- autumn 2016

Consultation on full draft – Autumn 2017 EiP – summer 2018, Adoption: Autumn 2019 Questions Match between where capacity is and where population trend growth is (outer London). Strategic land availability study required - devil in the detail Is this mayor asking: what kind of London do Londoners want to see? Drummond Robson: When is assessment of options and environmental impact going to take place? John: CASA model and TfL’s Lonluty(?) model should do this. Nicky G: growth of employment hubs outside London, as well as housing? Reverse commuting. John: One of TfL students has done a good piece of work on this: 274k a year going out, 789k a year coming in. Current status unknown. “WE PLAN LONDON” See http://weplanlondon.com/ and Sara’s article in this issue of PiL. Sara Dilmamode explained that this was a

New planning, information and training site.Born out of frustrations, such as repeat tasks. Explaining acronyms. Opacity a problem in planning. Getting [new things] done. Eg CIL. How do you fill out CIL forms? What does it include? ‘Planimations’ – e.g. http://weplanlondon.com/explain/planimationplanning-applications/ http://weplanlondon.com/explain/planimationthe-development-plan/ Collate useful resources. E.g. QUOD’s CIL map; Useful Talks; Planning TV – bitesize planning discussions/panels. What next? • Planning perspectives- public/private sectors • Short bite-size courses on ‘how do you do X planning thing’. Use the YouTube model. ■

NEXT MEETING ... at UCL on 14th September, our host is Michael Edwards. Room LG01, Central House, 14 Upper Woburn Place WC1H 0NN Issue 98 JULY-SEPTEMBER 2016

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:16 Page 38

BRIEFING | LETTERS

LETTERS

Luxury skyscrapers are cuckoos From: Michael Bach Sir, Report lauds ‘transformational qualities’ of high-end resi towers. The use of words/phrases like “high-end”, skyscrapers, property prices out-performing, communications firm, Savills – announces a marketing apologia (see report from BDonline reproduced opposite). High-rise towers do not regenerate – bring life to local neighbourhoods – but produce an alien parallel universe for people who do not want to play an active part in the life of our city. Far from bringing life, they are often mainly empty monuments to foreign investment/depository that has absolutely nothing to do with being good the neighbourhood. Perhaps we need some real research on the who occupies these buildings, the occupancy rate and the community’s response to these cuckoos. ■

Another fine example of the planning system not being certain From: Martin H Goodall LARTPI Sir, Andy Rogers in his interesting article in Issue 97 of PiL (April – June 2016) kindly referred to my Planning Law Blog, and to the exchanges we have had in the blog regarding a couple of recent appeal decisions involving the amalgamation of two or more flats to form a single dwelling. In many cases these are a re-conversion where a house had previously been divided into smaller units. There is one point that I ought perhaps to clarify. Until the High Court judgment in Richmond upon Thames LBC v SSETR [2001] J.P.L. 84, it had generally been assumed (in reliance on section 55(2)(f) of the 1990 Act) that combining two or

Planning in London

A vision of towers, Nine Elms Opportunity Area – cuckoos or regeneration?

more dwellings to form a single unit was not development, whereas the converse (sub-division of a dwelling into two or more units) does require planning permission, because section 55(3)(a) says so. It is important not to give too wide an interpretation to the Richmond judgment. That case related to the re-conversion of no fewer than seven flats to restore the building to its original form as a single house. The deputy judge held that the loss of that number of small dwellings in face of clear local planning policies that sought to avoid such losses amounted to a material change of use, notwithstanding section 55(2)(f). However, it is clear that where there are no such policy considerations, it is less likely that such a conversion will be seen as a material change of use. The number of units that would be lost will also be a factor in this. Amalgamating just two flats to form a single dwelling is less likely to be seen as a material change of use. Two contrasting appeal decisions, both kindly brought to my attention by Andy Rogers, illustrate the different outcomes that may result from different facts. In one case, several small flats would

have been lost, contrary to clear planning policies that sought to resist this and so this appeal was dismissed, in accordance with the Richmond judgment. The other case involved the amalgamation of only two flats, and local planning policies were by no means so clear-cut. This case therefore went in favour of the appellant. I discussed the first appeal in my blog at http://planninglawblog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/a malgamating-two-or-more-dwellings.html (on 12 February 2016) and the second appeal at http://planninglawblog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/a malgamating-two-or-more-dwellings-2.html (on 18 February 2016).” ... Andy Rogers is very pleased to have this further clarification of the confusing case law and variable appeal decisions. The whole thrust of his article was that there is no absolutely clear rule (another fine example of the planning system not being certain) it depends on the number and size of the flats/bedsits to be “lost” (there is no loss of C3 residential space), the wording of local policies and therefore the personal interpretation of an individual in each case! – Editor ■

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:16 Page 39

BRIEFING

Report lauds ‘transformational qualities’ of high-end resi towers Residential skyscrapers have a huge regenerative impact on the neighbourhoods where they are built and can prompt a surge in local property prices of as much as 180 per cent, a new report claims, reported BDonline. The study - endorsed by architect Daniel Libeskind and property firm Savills - looked at recent high-rise developments in London, New York, Dubai and Warsaw in a bid to assess the impact of premium residential schemes of more than 20 storeys. There are currently more than 430 towers of 20-plus storeys planned for London, according to research by New London Architecture. The report, Sky High Living, argues that in London’s South Bank area, property prices have significantly “out-performed” the capital’s average over the past decade, rising by 120 per cent against 85 per cent as a result of an influx of new high-rise luxury developments. It said eight towers

ER IV N U

T SI

B OF

K UC

most iconic and recognisable buildings of any city were typically its skyscrapers, but that the purpose of the skyscraper was “steadily changing” from a show of wealth and decadence to the provision of a high quality of life for residents. “The design must tell a story and the purpose must serve the wider population,” he wrote. “Constructing tall, well-designed skyscrapers that provide hundreds of homes in a built-up city can have such a positive impact on the local community and its wider surroundings. “The impact these towers have is not only on the skyline but also on the community at ground level. It is important that such important buildings are designed with the people of their surroundings at heart, to appeal to the community, as well as to those just passing by.” Charles Weston Baker, head of international residential at Savills, said residential skyscrapers were a source of new global competition in housing and had a “palpable” effect on property values in their surrounding areas. “Typically, they are some of the most iconic, most modern, most luxurious buildings in their local surroundings, having a profound impact on the local property market,” he said. “These luxury skyscrapers have entered a league of their own, no longer compared to nearby schemes in the same city or district; they are compared to their equivalents across the globe.” ■

ty ali u gQ n i ch ea T for

G IN

ar Ye e h ft o ty rsi e v i Un

E TH

with a residential element had been constructed in the SE1 postcode area during that period, among them BFLS’s Strata tower at Elephant & Castle, winner of BD’s 2010 Carbuncle Cup. As well as Strata, the study said that developments including Rogers Stirk Harbour & Partners’ Stirling-shortlisted Neo Bankside, KPF’s redevelopment of Richard Seifert’s King’s Reach Tower, Renzo Piano’s Shard and Panter Hudspith’s Signal Building in Newington Causeway had provided more than 12,000sq m of new retail space as well as contributing to improvements in the local area. The report, published by communications firm Lawrie Cornish, drew a connection between the completion of the Strata tower in 2010 and a 14.1 per cent rise in South Bank property prices during the same year. Elsewhere, it said that the Daniel Libeskind-designed tower Zlota 44 in Warsaw had contributed to a 180 per cent rise in property prices in its locale during 2015. The report conceded that New York’s skyscraper pipeline had dwindled in recent years, with developers keener to focus on industrial- and commercial-to-residential conversions. However it pointed to last year’s completion of the 85-storey Rafael Viñoly-designed 432 Park Avenue, which it said had triggered a push for new residential towers in the vicinity of Central Park. In a foreword to the report, Libeskind said the

M HA

Master’s in

URBAN DESIGN

THE UNIVERSITY OF

BUCKINGHAM

LONDON PROGRAMMES Issue 98 JULY-SEPTEMBER 2016

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:16 Page 40

ANDY ROGERS

Prescience, or what? Introducing this year’s RTPI Planning Convention theme of ‘Better planning solutions for the challenge of growth’, Antony Rifkin of Allies and Morrison suggested ten key aspirations including a modernisation of green belts, especially around stations. “They are a substantial chunk of Britain: 9.5 per cent of the land of England and Wales … But do they still .. represent sound planning? Originally, there were at least three good reasons for them: negatively, to stop urban sprawl, thus reducing long commuter journeys from soulless dormitory suburbs; positively, to preserve agriculture as a national asset; positively again, to keep green lungs around the cities for the enjoyment of townspeople. None of these justifications now seems to have the same force”. No, this is NOT how Antony Rifkin continued. It is part of the plea from a young Peter Hall, writing in The Observer in April 1973, for Green Belts to be reassessed. And so it has continued, with Kate Barker’s key recommendation ten years ago in her Review of Land Use Planning that green belt boundaries should be reviewed, The Adam Smith

Institute’s proposals for reform entitled The Green Noose (“The concept of ever-expanding urban sprawl is mistaken and pernicious”), and London First’s recent suggestion that, especially in and around London, “the Green Belt can play a small part in helping to accommodate the new homes that London needs”. Several speakers at the Planning Convention highlighted the current disconnect between the supply of homes and jobs, typified by the brownfield/greenfield/greenbelt conundrum that often separates people from homes and transport options that are affordable and at the same time reasonable. As peter Hall pointed out, all those years ago: ”Far from cutting commuter journeys, green belts have too often increased them”. And while “agricultural land now seems less sacred than in those post-war years [when the green belts were created following the 1947 Planning Act] … too little of the green belts is truly available for the people’s enjoyment - only 5.5 per cent of London’s green belt, for example…” Green belts are certainly not the bucolic idylls that some imagine

“[We should] urge the mind to aftersight and foresight” – from T S Eliot’s Four Quartets, 1942 them to be. The challenge of growth is to update local plans more rapidly to reflect changing markets and conditions, to take proper account of high-speed modern transport and digital links, and to plan for what people want, where it’s needed to meet real demand. All of which was emphasised by a number of contributors to the Planning Convention, leaving the distinct impression that the planning system can work well (as Helen Hayes MP eruditely explained) when it’s not restrictive but used as a tool for delivery through the wider participation of communities - and is properly resourced. Whether my Almanac column for 2012, which suggested “a consortium of Russian and Chinese businessmen will invest £200bn in new housing on condition that half can be built on green belt land; Grant Shapps says “This is just what our country needs” turns out to be half accurate in the upcoming world of Planning in Principle and under a new Infrastructure Act alongside Brexit remains to be seen. Watch this space. PS. In the same column I also made the following prediction: May 31st – Coalition government defers decision on having a referendum about EU membership the day after announcing one; George Osborne says “We cannot consider voting on an issue as important as this when we don’t know what the answer will be”. Prescience, or what?

Green Belt land refused development permission near St Albans

Planning in London

“What we call the beginning is often the end And to make an end is to make a beginning. The end is where we start from.” – T S Eliot Four Quartets, 1942

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:16 Page 41

PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATIONS | GRANT LEGGETT

‘Pre-Apps’ need to get the buzz back In 2003 local authorities were given the power to charge for pre-application advice but the routine since has lost its shine, reflects Grant Leggett

Grant Leggett is director, head of Boyer’s London office. Boyer is a multiskilled national planning consultancy

I can still remember the buzz as a planning officer in 2003 when local authorities were given the power to charge for preapplication advice. The authority I worked for was an earlyadopter and we brought in the service immediately. There was a new sort of pressure to deliver, but it was a pressure and challenge we relished. And we responded with gusto. Pre-app enquiries were put in a specially-coloured folder that sang from in-trays. They took priority over applications and Duty Planner schedules. We rigorously adhered to the preapp timetable; they were acknowledged within 5 days and a meeting was set up within 10. We studied the proposals and held internal pre-meeting discussions with the team of officers that would be in the actual meeting. We agonised over our advice and wrote pre-app advice reports full of detail, and the advice went out 10 days after we’d met. Now fast forward to today, thirteen years is a fair old time in planning, and anyone would expect that over that timescale the process would lose its shine once it became routine. But sadly, in many cases, it has gone beyond being routine. It’s not only lost its shine, but it’s become a bit grubby. We have seen pre-app dropped down the priority list for officers who are charged with high caseloads. Planning departments see it as a chore that takes them away from their pressing applications. Many developers are now cynical of the process for a variety of reasons. Some view it simply as a tax that is made compulsory by the threat that an application that has not been through pre-app will be auto-refused on its first attempt. Accordingly, some applicants, even on substantial developments, are being advised to submit applications without any pre-app, recognising that even if refused, the refusal will provide more concrete advice than pre-app advice would, and in some cases it is quicker. Others see it as a deliberate delaying tactic to keep applications back till sometime in the future. There is a sense that officers are drowning so deeply in their current caseloads they just want to delay anything new coming in. One can’t help but sympathise with these views. Everyone has a tale to tell of how the pre-app process has outraged them. Often local authorities’ published timetables for advice are often seemingly ignored and the process drags on interminably, to the point that some applications are made before formal advice is received. More often than not we give our own advice to developers following meetings on what should be progressed, albeit at some risk, but balancing that risk against delays in waiting for a response that could take weeks or not be clear. There is something very disheartening about paying a preapplication fee in the thousands of pounds only for the meeting to be attended by one or two officers. The disheartenment quickly turns to anger when the officers haven’t reviewed the

information and the meeting becomes a glorified presentation of the proposals to officers who are unable to comment because they haven’t had time to digest it or don’t have the expertise or authority. Important matters are sometimes not considered in the meeting, meaning the written response is a one-sided view that has not been discussed, and results in a prolonged period of exchanges to clarify matters that could and should have been dealt with face-to-face. Perhaps most frustrating to developers are the cases where the advice received is simply a regurgitation of policy with no real assessment or balance. Consideration of planning applications is not a tick-box exercise and neither should pre-application advice be. There are still very good news stories in the pre-app world. Recently we have gone through a process that was timely, attended by the relevant officers of all necessary disciplines, and where the meeting fostered an open discussion on the main issues. Even though the authority in that case was opposed to the development in principle, we were able to have a sensible discussion on it where both sides understood their points of view. And while it was clear the authority was not going to be persuaded to our way of thinking, we were able to put that to one side and examine all the proposal’s other elements in a constructive way. Developers, of course, are not blameless in the creeping decline of pre-app services. Successful pre-application discussions are a two-way street. Where in the early days they were as excited about the prospects of the new service that they also contributed with great enthusiasm, nowadays their preapplication submissions are often lacking in detail. Whether this is because of the decline in the quality of services causing them to be cynical is a matter for some consideration, but not an excuse for not holding up their end of the deal. Developers also often have unrealistic expectations of the quality of advice they can get when they are reluctant to invest in it. They expect detailed advice despite only wanting to provide scant detail. The all-too-common and somewhat outdated tactic of asking for way too much at pre-app knowing it will get knocked down by officers has also worn very thin. Officers are jaded, and I expect somewhat insulted by this tactic, and we think it only serves to prolong the pre-app process since it’s only really by the second stage that a sensible scheme is on the table. Sometimes developers don’t understand the nuance involved in pre-app advice. There is an art to reading between the lines of the advice that officers give verbally and in writing, which some developers don’t entirely grasp. Some also don’t fully understand the implications of pre-application advice being without prejudice. It is, and must always be a fundamental principle of pre-application advice that it is given as the >>>

Issue 98 JULY-SEPTEMBER 2016

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:16 Page 42

PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATIONS | GRANT LEGGETT

>>> informed and honest views of officers, and understood that sometimes when proposals are subjected to the full public glare of consultation, officers will change their views. At the heart of the decline in pre-application services is resourcing. We recognise that the lack of resource in local authorities has stretched everyone to breaking point. If there is a panacea to improving the service, it is more resource for local authorities that desperately need it. The difficulties in recruiting BELOW: and retaining staff in the public sector are reaching a crisis Pre-application is an point. Some authorities are considering, or in Lambeth’s case essential part of the have implemented, pay rises across the board to planning staff process and can be very to help stave off approaches from the private sector or to presuccessful vent people leaving planning altogether. These pay rises are, ironically, paid for by pre-application fees, which we expect are set to rise across London. We will await the reaction to the increase in fees. It remains to be seen if the price increases serve to improve the quality of the services and attitudes to it, or whether it will be viewed more cynically as an inflationary rise required to ensure the existing level of service. Should the level of resourcing not change to enable the quality of services to improve, developers can take the bull by

the horns and do their bit to raise the bar. The simplest means of helping to ensure a good quality pre-application service is to ensure that the quality of information provided is up to scratch. It must be sufficiently clear and detailed to enable the relevant matters to be considered and advised upon. Clarity is as important as detail; developers should make the local authority’s job in giving them the advice required as simple as possible, by making each pre-app submission clear and easy to understand. A helpful tactic we use is to provide a simple schedule of key matters to be discussed and advised upon. We follow this up immediately after pre-application meetings with our own schedule of matters agreed and not agreed. There is no doubt in our minds that pre-application advice remains an essential and valuable part of the development process. There is also no doubt that it should remain as a paidfor service. But all parties to it need to contribute to bringing the buzz back. Local authority resourcing remains the main issue in my mind, for why the service has declined. While there doesn’t seem to be any quick fix coming for that we need to do our part to keep it streamlined, focused and timely. ■

WINNER BEST AGENCY PUBLICATION 2016 IN2 SABRE AWARDS EMEA

The number 1 agency working in PR and Communications in the built environment

Subscribe to our award-winning free monthly news magazine on our website

londoncommunications.co.uk

Planning in London

@LDNcomms

020 7612 8480

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:16 Page 43

LONDON 2016: THE OUTCOME

London 2016 The outcome

Issue 98 JULY-SEPTEMBER 2016

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:16 Page 44

LONDON 2016: THE OUTCOME

TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction

London 2016 Results

Sadiqâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Mayoral Agenda

Planning perspective

Deputy Mayor for Housing

Conclusion

Our services

Planning in London

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:16 Page 45

Introduction So London has finally spoken. After 8 years of Boris Johnson, the keys to City Hall have been handed over to Labour’s Sadiq Khan who becomes the third Mayor of Mayor of London. The campaign was a fractious and controversial affair. Much criticism was levied at Zac Goldsmith for the tone of his campaign. The Goldsmith team faced accusations of racism, and ethnic profiling. Many within the Conservative Party feel the campaign has damaged the party’s long term prospects of regaining the Mayoralty, in what is, ostensibly, a “Labour city”. That is water under the bridge now. The attention turns from the campaign trail to the Khan administration which has hit the ground running. New Deputy Mayors have been appointed, policies around transport fares and the Garden Bridge have been announced and the Mayor has promised action on a wide range of issues. At the time of writing we are still awaiting the appointment of a Deputy Mayor for Planning. Despite rumours to the contrary Neale Coleman will not take up the position. The Mayor has said he will not be rushed into making an appointment, so we wait to see who he will appoint. This document provides some background analysis on the results, what they mean for London and the property industry more generally. I am delighted Grant Leggett, Director at planning consultants Boyer, has also provided a planning perspective on the outcome of the Mayoral election and you find that on page 9 of this document. There is no doubting the scale of the challenges the Mayor faces. London needs more housing and more commercial space if it is to retain its position as one of the greatest cities on the planet. We will watch with interest to see Khan tackles the challenges he faces. Oliver Deed Associate Director Snapdragon Consulting

Issue 98 JULY-SEPTEMBER 2016

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:16 Page 46

LONDON 2016: THE OUTCOME

London 2016 results Mayoral Result Despite predictions to the contrary, Sadiq Khan won the London Mayoralty by a comfortable margin. Once second preferences were taken into account, Khan’s margin of victory was effectively 13%, or around 316,000 votes. To put that into context, Boris won in 2012 with 51.5% of the votes compared to Ken Livingstone’s 48.5%. As expected, Zac performed well in the suburbs winning popular vote in Barnet, Harrow, Havering, Bromley and Sutton, but Khan triumphed in densely populated inner city boroughs including Newham, Tower Hamlets, Southwark and Lambeth. Sadiq also managed to win the popular vote in Wandsworth, Merton and Enfield, all three of whom had predominantly backed Boris in 2012. The scale of the Conservative challenge in London is now clear for all to see. Without Boris’s personal vote to rely on, Goldsmith failed to hold off an extremely disciplined, well-resourced Labour campaign. In 2020, the Conservative candidate will have an uphill battle win the Mayoralty back and a detoxification strategy along the lines implemented by Ruth Davidson in Scotland will be in order.

Assembly results

GLA Composition

At the Assembly level, little changed. The Conservatives and the Lib Dems lost a seat respectively, and UKIP gained two seats having recorded 6.5% of the London-wide vote.

Labour Conservative Lib Dem

Labour managed to gain the Merton and Wandsworth constituency from the Conservatives, but lost a seat on the party list. Labour remain the largest party with 12 seats overall. The composition is: •  •  •  •  •

Labour Conservative UKIP Green Lib Dem

– -

12 8 2 2 1

Green UKIP

(NC) (-1) (+2) (NC) (-1)

As the Labour Group is the largest on the Assembly, the Mayor of London will have no problem in passing his Budget and ensuring the appointment of Deputy Mayors and individuals to other positions. That is not to say the Labour Group will not look to scrutinise the Mayor on issues. At the ﬁrst Mayor’s Question Time, many of them were critical of the Mayor’s decision to push on with the vexed Garden Bridge project, which is a sign of things to come.

Planning in London

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:16 Page 47

The Labour Group has a number of individuals within it who could cause the Mayor problems during his term in office. Seasoned campaigners Andrew Dismore and Tom Copley are vocal Assembly Members who take their scrutiny role very seriously. Copley is particularly vocal on housing issues and will hold the Mayor to account on his manifesto promises. Overall, the Mayoral and Assembly elections were superb for Labour, and a disappointment to the Conservative Party. With two members on the Assembly, UKIP will look to build up its presence in the capital, under Peter Whittle who is one of UKIP’s smarter politicians. Whittle’s first question at Mayor’s Question Time was about female genital mutilation and he struck a very reasonable tone at the session. The Lib Dems lost a seat, but the widely respected Caroline Pidgeon retained her seat on the Assembly. If the Lib Dems are to rebuild in the capital, they would be well advised to make full use of Pidgeon’s talents. The Greens managed to retain two seats and former Mayoral candidate Sian Berry will continue to vocally campaign on environmental issues such as air quality in London. Politics in London for the next four years will be dominated by Labour. Based on these elections Labour will be looking to hold on to all of its existing councils at the 2018 Local Elections, and will be confident of retaining the Mayoralty in 2020.

Issue 98 JULY-SEPTEMBER 2016

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:16 Page 48

LONDON 2016: THE OUTCOME

Sadiq’s Mayoral Agenda So now he is safely ensconced in City Hall, Sadiq Khan’s attention will turn to implementing his agenda. Prior to the election, Khan outlined a number of policies in his manifesto, and since his election he has made a number of interventions that indicate what his approach to planning will be. So far Khan has already reversed Boris’s decision to object to the Compulsory Purchase Order required for the expansion of London City Airport. He has also signalled his support for the Garden Bridge project by arguing it would be more expensive to cut the scheme than proceed with it. The latter decision was particularly controversial. The question now being asked by the property industry in London is what else can we expect from the new Mayor. His manifesto and interventions during the campaign oﬀer some hints.

Housing numbers During the hustings and within his manifesto, Khan refused to put a figure on the amount of new homes per annum he would like to see delivered in London. Whilst Goldsmith stated 50,000 new homes per year would be his target, Khan assiduously dodged the question. Conservative Assembly Members probed him on numbers at the first Mayor’s Question Time and again he refused to be drawn. However, it is worth noting that since he has taken office, Khan has accused the last Mayor of “leaving the cupboard bare” on affordable housing and wider housing delivery. If Khan were not to significantly better Boris’s record, he would be judged a failure and most analysts believe 50,000 new homes per year to be the magic number to tackle the shortage of housing in the capital.

Affordable housing Khan majored on affordable housing during the Mayoral campaign. Whilst he refused to give a number on how many homes he wants to see delivered overall, he has said he will set a target of 50% affordable housing for new developments coming forward. This is expected too be introduced through the London Plan as an “expectation”. On the campaign trail Khan said that he would review the £8bn Earl’s Court redevelopment — a major regeneration scheme that involves demolishing two council estates — because only 11 per cent of the new housing would “actually be affordable.” Observers will be watching closely to see if he actually does review the scheme, and how he determines applications that come across his desk in the first six months of his Mayoralty.

Planning in London

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:16 Page 49

The Mayor also stated on the campaign trail that he would follow Bill de Blasio, the Mayor of New York, in banning so called “poor doors” whereby separate entrances are provided for aﬀordable housing within a residential scheme. This was widely welcomed within the Labour Party, as their councillors have had a long standing dislike of “poor doors”, but many housing associations and developers have expressed concerns about the impact this policy will have on aﬀordable housing delivery. It will be interesting to see whether Khan decides to include this provision in the next iteration of the London Plan. Watch this space

Homes for Londoners In his manifesto Sadiq pledged to set up a new team at City Hall dedicated to fast-tracking the building of “genuinely affordable homes to rent and buy”. This team, known as ‘Homes for Londoners’ will utilise the Mayor's housing, planning, funding, and land powers and bring in new experts to raise investment, assemble land, make sure Londoners get “a fair deal from developers”, and commission and construct new homes. At the first Mayor’s Question Time he said the body could well represent a new layer of municipal house building in London. The Mayor has committed to releasing TfL land for development and to fast track planning permissions for these sites and Homes for Londoners may take a key role in shaping that process. Estate Regeneration Khan pledged that under his mayoralty, estate regeneration will only go ahead with the “full support of existing residents”. In his view, an application for the regeneration of estates in London will have to be accompanied by “fair and transparent” consultation process that seeks to give residents the opportunity to shape and comment on proposals. He also pledged to give full rights to return for displaced tenants and make provision to ensure all social housing is replaced like for like, which may be difficult to implement in practice.

Rental Market One of Khan’s very first policy pledges was to create a London Living Rent and a Londonwide social letting agency. Since he was elected, he has stated that the London Living Rent will be set at a third of average local income and adding that he feels income rather than property values are a better indicator of affordability in the capital. He has also pledged to crack down on rouge landlords, “naming and shaming” those operating in London and has said he will look to lobby Government for the power to introduce a landlord licensing scheme. Much of his housing manifesto focused on the role of private landlords and helping to extend the rights of tenants throughout London, and there is no doubt we will see action on this in the first 6 months of his term in office.

Issue 98 JULY-SEPTEMBER 2016

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:16 Page 50

LONDON 2016: THE OUTCOME

Infrastructure Sadiq acted swiftly to appoint Lord Adonis as the chair of the Crossrail 2 board, demonstrating that he means business on this project. Like all Mayoral candidates he was ﬁrmly in favour of this particular project, although he did promise to review the proposals for a station at King’s Road. Under Khan’s mayoralty, City Hall’s objection to a third runway at Heathrow will continue. He favours a second runway at Gatwick demonstrating he is not adverse to aviation expansion, as long as it is in what he perceives to be the right place. The Mayor’s decision to reverse Boris Johnson’s objection to the CPO of land at City Airport to facilitate expansion is also testament to that. It would also be fair to assume “Boris Island” is sunk.

Permitted Development Rights During the Mayoral campaign, Sadiq Khan outlined his opposition to a “free for all” when it comes to office to residential conversions in London, citing the loss of office space as a barrier to the growth of the London economy. The Mayor may well direct resources towards supporting local authorities in renewing their Article 4 directions. He may also lobby the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) for Mayoral powers to limit the amount of office to residential conversions allowed in London. With government ministers not minded to move on the issue, he faces a tough task to secure any power to limit the powers.

What to watch in the next six months: •  Alterations to the London Plan or a fresh document for consultation. •  Supplementary Planning Guidance on aﬀordable housing provision, including a revised target for new schemes. •  Measures to increase the transparency of the viability reports. •  Further information about the Homes for Londoner organisation. •  Releases of parcels of TfL land •  Decisions on: • Bishopsgate Goodsyard. • AFC Wimbledon’s redevelopment of the Wimbledon Greyhound Stadium.

Planning in London

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:16 Page 51

The planning perspective Grant Leggett, Director at planning consultancy Boyer provides his perspective on the outcome of the Mayoral race, and what lies in store for London: The Mayoral election and the lead-up to it brought mildly overcast conditions to the development industry, rather than a deep, dark cloud of foreboding. But nevertheless there is relief that it’s over with and an uncertain certainty now prevails. It’s back to a new sort of normal. Back to work now, please. For planning, the main implications of Mr Khan’s election will be on housing policy. And as coy as he might have been on stating a target for new homes, housing delivery will be the main matter he is tested on after his first year in office. If delivery figures fall in the year to May 2017 the hounds will be released. I sense he has recognised this in dialling down some of his pre-election rhetoric on affordable homes. His “expectation” of 50% of homes being affordable doesn’t seem to me to be a great change from the current situation, so enshrined is it in most Local Plans. Unless Mr Khan intends his London Plan will do away with viability as a policy test, which would be so catastrophic as to be completely untenable, the change in policy will represent a blip rather than a phase shift. He campaigned to do away with the provocatively termed “poor doors”, which while a worthy aspiration would likely be a drag on delivery of affordable homes. So overall we expect the inertia of London and the need to continue to deliver homes will eventually dent some of his aspirations and the new normal won’t stray far from the current. For many the appointment of James Murray as Deputy Mayor for Housing is more significant for planning than Khan’s election. To some he’s a visionary, while others mutter he’s a renegade. But no-one will question his determination to push the boundaries to achieve his goals. He will no doubt urge Khan to be bullish. Mr Khan also campaigned on Permitted Development rights, especially for office to residential use, which he claims are harming London’s economy. This is nothing new, though. The previous Mayor identified this and published guidance for the CAZ on how authorities can fend off conversions from office to homes, using Article 4 Directions. Mr Khan and Mr Murray seem likely to pick up this baton and provide resources to local authorities to get Directions in place. Mr Khan will no doubt badge it as his own initiative, but such is politics. No-one calls them Ken Bikes. We await with interest to see how Mr Khan deals with his most pressing obligations; the seemingly neverending saga of Bishopsgate Goods Yard among them. This will provide a litmus test and might set some hares running. Overall there is no great sense of trepidation that London is about to be turned on its head in terms of planning. Over to Mr Khan and Mr Murray to test my views.

Issue 98 JULY-SEPTEMBER 2016

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:16 Page 52

LONDON 2016: THE OUTCOME

Deputy mayor for housing Cllr James Murray The new Mayor of London acted quickly to appoint Cllr James Murray as his new Deputy Mayor for Housing. Cllr Murray was most recently the Portfolio Holder for Planning at Islington Council, one of the most densely developed boroughs in London. ! In this role he has sought to balance the need for new development with the desire to retain the borough’s character. He has fought proposed tall buildings at Mount Pleasant and a scheme which will overshadow the grave yard where the poet William Blake is interred. He is considered by some in the development industry to have made development in the borough difficult. While his stance in Islington does not necessarily indicate overall opposition to tall buildings it does at the very least suggest he will be cautious about where they are located. As Portfolio Holder he has been at the forefront of policy development in London, pushing Article 4 directions for the whole borough against office to resi PD rights, supported the creation of more council led housing schemes and pushed for increased delivery of affordable homes across all schemes, including demanding publication of viability assessments to the chagrin of the development industry. He is also considered by many to be against most estate demolitions. Instead he prefers renewal and the potential of upwards extension – with the consent of a majority of tenants. Under Khan, he will advise on planning policy in relation to housing, and will be at the forefront of delivering the new “Homes for Londoners” organisation that was a flagship election policy. It is likely he will also lead up a drive to make viability assessments across London transparent, as he has done in Islington. Expect that to be heavily resisted in the industry, but widely lauded among Labour councillors and activists. !

Councillor James Murray, some facts: •  •  •  •  •  •  •

Councillor for the affluent ward of Barnsbury in Islington since 2006 Executive Member for Housing and Development since 2010 He has committed Islington to build 2000 affordable homes by 2019 He led Islington to a new programme of social house building, starting in 2011 He has sought to penalise “buy to leave” occupiers in Islington He supports the direct delivery of council services He has been fighting Rogue Landlords within Islington

Planning in London

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:16 Page 53

Conclusions After almost 10 months of campaigning, the dust is beginning to settle at City Hall after the Mayoral election. The development industry will breath a sigh of relief that the cloud of uncertainty surrounding the Mayoralty has finally lifted, allowing everyone to get on with the business of building the homes the capital needs to meet existing and expected demand. The Mayor has not been in office long so it is difficult to predict exactly the approach he will take to development. However, we can ascertain that the provision of affordable housing is central to his vision and applicants who bring forward planning applications with low levels of provision are likely to get short shrift. Khan is gearing up to accelerate his predecessors programme of releasing public land for development, and his new “Homes for Londoners” body may well take on an active role in developing these sites. Khan ultimately wants “Homes for Londoners” to become as influential in the field of housing, as Transport for London is in shaping transport policy. In his first hundred days we expect to see the Mayor bring forward significant alterations to the London Plan for the consultation, or launch a new London Plan to differentiate his planning policy with that of his predecessor. He is also likely to bring forward plans to publish viability assessments shortly and flesh out his proposals for a “London Living Rent”. The Mayor also has some planning applications to determine. At the time of writing, Bishopsgate Goods Yard and AFC Wimbledon’s application for a stadium on the Wimbledon Greyhound Stadium site are sitting in his in-tray. Once these have been determined, the development industry will have a better idea of what type of Mayor Sadiq Khan will be. The next 4 years at City Hall will make for fascinating viewing. In order to be judged a success Khan needs to significantly better Boris’s record on housing delivery. That may require some compromise on his key manifesto pledge around affordable housing. So, get the popcorn ready and make yourself comfortable as we watch the next four years unfold.

Issue 98 JULY-SEPTEMBER 2016

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:16 Page 54

LONDON 2016: THE OUTCOME

Our Services

Community consultation Strategic Land, infrastructure, energy and waste Community led development Political intelligence We understand how changes in policy impact on your business We understand the importance of effective communication in supporting planning applications We understand the role of CSR in a business strategy We understand politics and political dynamics We tailor communications and stakeholder management programmes across a range of issues, subjects and requirements We recognise the different needs of different projects and different stakeholders

020 3176 4161 info@snapdragonconsulting.com @teamsnapdragon

Planning in London

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:16 Page 55

TRANSPORT AND DEVELOPMENT | NICHOLAS FALK

Mind the gaps Nicholas Falk on joining up transport and development in London

As London strives to compete with other world cities for investment, transport capacity will continue to be a top priority. However, having enjoyed a greater share of national investment since the Jubilee Line was extended out to Canary Wharf and High Speed One was opened up, and with the benefits of Crossrail One still to come, it will be very hard to make the case for major projects on transport grounds alone. Hence it vital to avoid ‘vanity projects’ and to consider the environmental and social benefits that would come from better planned growth around the places with most economic potential. This paper suggests how smarter growth could be secured through a focus on quality not quantity, and neglected parts of Greater London such as the Western Wedge. It draws lessons from Paris, Rotterdam and Copenhagen for how to mobilise private investment in sustainable forms of development, especially new social housing It argues that the new Mayor and London Plan should apply Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) to assess the impact of options on property investment and affordable housing . In the words of the familiar cry on London’s Underground ‘Mind the gaps.’ 1

Dr Nicholas Falk is founder director of URBED and an economist and strategic planner. Nicholas is a member of the Town and Country Planning Association’s working group on London and the South East, and is the author of many publications on cities, including policy reports for the Greater London Authority on suburbs, www.urbed.coop. He won the 2014 Wolfson Economics Essay Prize (with David Rudlin) for Uxcester Garden City, which shows how to build new garden cities that would be visionary, popular and viable.

Economic and social challenges While London has reversed the economic decline of the 60s and 70s its future is precarious for three main reasons. First it is an exceptionally expensive city to live in, with high housing and travel costs that create stress. Second the difficulties of finding somewhere to live and work could provoke more of the riots that damaged centres like Ealing and Clapham Junction a couple of years ago. Third with English being spoken throughout Europe, the jobs in economic success stories like media and education could easily relocate to cities such as Paris, Rotterdam or Berlin, where not only are premises much cheaper, but it also easier and often more pleasant to get around. The problems are most acute in Outer London, as revealed in government wellbeing surveys, as well as in research URBED undertook for the Greater London Authority on the state of the suburbs 2. In making national infrastructure investment decisions there are many choices and factors to be considered. For example The Guardian, in its lead editorial of December 8th 2015 at the height of the flooding stated: ‘Surely this is the time for the builders to build the infrastructure that people want and need. It’s time for government to put its money where its mouth is.. Flood defences are much greater priorities for those affected by these recurrent floods that HS2 or a third runway at Heathrow. Every pound spent on keeping communities dry and protected saves £10 in damage’. Simon Jenkins’s headline London must stop sucking cash from the rest of Britain says it all3. The priorities for transport investment in London MUST therefore be linked to wider 1

objectives such as opening up more affordable housing while retaining the stock of business premises around major stations such as Waterloo, London Bridge and Euston, and not just enabling long distance travellers to go further faster. Annual study tours URBED ran for the TEN Group of London planners to European cities have brought out the potential for comprehensive planned mixed use developments with transport at their heart4. Comparative data reveal that mid-sized European cities enjoy much shorter (and cheaper) commuting times to work, thanks to their metro rail systems5. They also provide much better and safer conditions for cyclists and pedestrians, as the example of Copenhagen vividly illustrates. As a result these cities have benefitted from ‘smarter growth’ in which transport investment and development go hand in hand, and reinforce each other, a point Professor Sir Peter Hall has highlighted6. While taxes are a little higher, this is because citizens invest in their ‘common wealth’, rather than borrowing to fund consumption, which helps keep their national economies in balance. Strategic options Given the state of public finance, the big projects for the next couple of decades in London are likely to be the sort of project recommended in the Eddington report that tackle ‘growing and congested urban areas7. A general principle should be to protect and expand places that already have physical infrastructure and social and environmental capital, rather than making it easier for people to travel from ever further away into Central London. Rather than more ‘grand projects’ we need many more small projects that are linked to great ideas. This is exemplified by the way an extension of the Northern Line south of the river is opening up privately funded development at the old Nine Elms market and Battersea power station, and by the impetus that Crossrail is giving to developments in run-down areas such as Woolwich. However such sites close to the centre of London, such as Kings Cross Goods Yard, are now very rare. It is also going to be increasingly important to avoid ‘planning blight’, and focus investment where it will produce the best return. Living close to Euston and Kings Cross, it is clear that the much-trumpeted ‘regeneration benefits’ of starting High Speed 2 or bringing Crossrail 2 to Euston are largely illusory, as there is so little undeveloped space. Apart from the redevelopment of the offices at the front of the station, the benefits could only be achieved by demolishing perfectly good social housing in Somers Town and somehow relocating the tenants to some other part of London. The result would probably be another riot, and will be strongly resisted. So instead it would be far better to look for places where there is under-used space for development, and where connec- >>>

Issue 98 JULY-SEPTEMBER 2016

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:16 Page 56

TRANSPORT AND DEVELOPMENT | NICHOLAS FALK

tivity could be improved. As examples these include the inner stretches of the Great Western Railway and Paddington Arm of the Grand Union Canal, or the edges of growing towns on the edge of London, such as at Chelmsford, Watford, Slough and Redhill that already serve as junctions, or at Brentford, where there is a freight only line running to Southall, and where quality development is at last underway. If ‘grand projects’ are needed, a really great opportunity is the potential for redeveloping Northolt Airport as a new garden city taking advantage of the three underground stations that serve it, rather than reserving it for relatively few Royal flights. Similarly there are good arguments for pressing on with extending Old Oak Common to create a commercial centre on a scale that matches an area like La Defence or Stratford, as well as a major transport interchange between Crossrail and other railway lines.

A version of this paper went to the National Infrastructure Commission. The plans are from a forthcoming report with Jonathan Manns for The London Society on A City in the West

Planning in London

Getting more value from Crossrail If we applied sound economic principles such as the minimisation of waste and environmental impact, and the promotion of social justice to locations that could benefit from new transport infrastructure, what would we do differently? The first place to invest is where capacity constraints are being relieved, for example by connecting up Crossrail One with the Great Western so that people can interchange readily without coming to a London terminal. The same principle could be applied to High Speed Two, thus saving a large part of the investment budget and a construction programme that could block the vital Euston Road East West link for as much as seven years. Indeed wherever property demand is high and space is under-occupied, there are strong economic arguments for

‘smarter growth’ to get much more value from any public investment. Transport turns out to be a necessary but not a sufficient condition for growth, as the long delays in developing Ebbsfleet or the Greenwich Peninsula demonstrate. Of course talk of new transport encourages speculative investment in buying land, but it does not build anything substantial that will stand the test of time. So to get more benefits it is essential to follow European practice in dealing with land that is identified for growth so that the subsequent uplift in land values can be ploughed back into the project, as in Germany, for example8. This depends on taking a more European or proactive approach to spatial planning, which in short might be called ‘Minding the gaps’. In other words we should be focussing on using transport to open up sites that are ‘ripe for development’, and to reduce congestion and overcrowding on local links. This can include copying the German approach of SBahn or fast local trains, which is now being promoted under the name Swift Rail9. Because there are lots of branches on Great Western (due to Brunel’s ambition of getting to Bristol as swiftly as possible), there is great potential for attracting people away from their cars for journeys to work in the parts of Outer London that are particularly prone to congestion. This should be combined with the greater use of bikes as in Copenhagen or Dutch cities, which would enable people to get to work in less time and with much less stress. Of course it means providing more bike parking (as in Cambridge Station, for example), as well as safe bikeways alongside direct roads. Funding transport infrastructure As well learning from Europe on how to secure ‘integrated’

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:16 Page 57

transport where different modes support each other and offer the preferred alternative for many people to the private car, we can also relearn from European cities how to pay for improvement by linking transport with development. Once the benefits are tapped, as they were when the Metropolitan Line was built from Baker Street out to North West London, or as has partly happened with the development of the Railway Lands at Kings Cross, we no longer have to rely on an over-subscribed transport budget, which can be directed instead at regeneration areas where demand is weaker. While land value uplift will only fund a proportion of the cost, it can ‘lever’ up public investment, as for example happened in extending the Jubilee Line out to Canary Wharf. The NIC could therefore innovate in how funding is raised for local infrastructure. Whereas the use of bonds to finance infrastructure is quite common in US cities such as New York and Portland Oregon, it has proved difficult to persuade the Treasury to give local authorities the freedom needed. As a result we end up with a perpetual ‘stop go’ situation, which increases costs and drains capacity. The latest escalation of costs on the Great Western electrification seem to show the failures of our procurement methods to deliver the forecast outcomes10. But the faults essentially stem from the way projects are

designed, promoted and selected with little real evaluation of the options, as Ian Wray stresses in his new book Great British Plans11. Examination of recent examples such as High Speed One reveal the British often place excessive value on environmental features such as the Green Belt without regard to the financial implications or the cost of longer journeys to work. The Omega 3 report referred to earlier provides plenty of further evidence on how to improve the design and delivery of major infrastructure projects. With public funding for investment being in such short supply, consideration will have to be given to tapping private sources, and to using the uplift in land values as a means of reducing borrowing costs. While this falls outside the NIC’s remit, there is a host of evidence that makes the case for a charge on land12. Recent examples such as Dublin’s LUAS tram system or Nottingham Tramlink, to show how support from employers and property interests can be secured. Lessons from foreign metropolitan areas As far as London specifically is concerned, much can be learned from major Transit Oriented Development schemes, such as ‘Paris Rive Gauche’ over the railway lines into Gare de l’Austerlitz, or Rotterdam’s Kop von Zuid which is linked to the new Rotterdam Station by the Erasmus Bridge. Another good >>>

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

-./01)2 3"$'4&)5)/6'+&7)3%'8+9&':()#6;(

Issue 98 JULY-SEPTEMBER 2016

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:16 Page 58

TRANSPORT AND DEVELOPMENT | NICHOLAS FALK

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

!"#$%&./01

FOOTNOTES 1 Recommendations on the use of MCA are set out in the final report of UCL’s Omega 3 project 2010http://www.omegacentre.bartlett .ucl.ac.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2014/10/OMEG A-3-Final-Report.pdf and in the RAMP handbook (Risk Analysis and Management for Projects, ICE 2014 2 See for example A City of Villages: promoting a sustainable future for London’s subburbs, SDS Technical Report 11, Greater London Authority August 2002 3 Simon Jenkins Guardian Opinion, December 24th 2015 4 See for example Learning from Berlin, www.urbed.coop 2008 or Living Suburbs: London vs Paris, 2013 www.urbed.coop 5 Ed. Nicola Schuller et al, Urban Reports, gte Verlag, Zurich 6 Peter Hall with Nicholas Falk, Good Cities Better Lives: how Europe discovered the lost art of urbanism, Routledge 2014 7 The Eddington Transport Study: the case for action, HM Treasury >>> 2006

Planning in London

23456&7 8*9#+:;&<**=>:&?"-%

)*'(*' ./01

model is Copenhagen’s new satellite town of Orebro, which has largely funded the first line of their new Metro by tapping the uplift in land values 13. The National Infrastructure Commission could hugely increase the value for money from infrastructure projects if it nor only assessed the full range of options in terms of their wider impacts, but encouraged new funding and organisational models drawing on European best practice. While direct comparisons are limited, the general conclusion is that: for the UK, the main focus remains on the directly attributable economic performance of the transport service itself. In most continental European countries, the wider aspects of economic and strategic impact play an important part in considering the return on public funding; the political and technical processes of establishing this are key to decisions14. So what needs to be done? Sir David Higgins has set out five guiding principles for HS2, which provide a good start: • Stand the test of time • Be the right strategic answer • Be integrated with existing and future transport services • Maximise the value added to local and national economies, and • Be a catalyst for change both nationally and locally. But infrastructure (and HS2) is about far more than just transport, and so projects need to be evaluated against a multiple set of criteria. For example, the connection of Lille to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link to Paris provided the impetus for reversing the decline of a whole region. The case study in Good Cities Better Lives shows how local political leadership joined up transport and development15. It contrasts with the sorry tale of North Kent, which is a case study in Ian Wray’s Great British Plans. Similarly development over the railway lines running into Gare de l’Austerlitz has transformed and reconnected a poor part of Paris with both sides of the River Seine. If such an approach were applied to Euston, it could overcome some of the objections, as at least it would provide additional land for

23456&7 8*9#+:;&<**=>:&?"-%

regeneration. The summary of the French and German case studies in Good Cities Better Lives concluded that their greater success could be attributed to: • Municipal leadership • Strategic planning • Public-private relationships • Multi-Criteria Analysis • Local taxes on employers • Cost control • Domestic industry • Urbanism • City-regional cooperation. The French approach is not perfect, and they have had much more civil disorder than London has yet experienced. Nevertheless, it does provide a relatively simple model for strategic planning that London could well learn from before it designs and delivers the next ‘grand project16. Significantly most European cities have adopted similar approaches to managing their own futures rather than depending on passing the begging bowl to government for every project. The National Infrastructure Commission could therefore fill an important gap by commissioning some comparisons in advance of further work on designing projects that may never be built. Filling the gaps Changing a flawed planning system will not be easy. In the introductory chapter to Great British Plans Ian Wray points out the 60% of the country’s infrastructure is now in private hands, the highest proportion in the world. This makes it very hard to secure the level and quality of infrastructure we need. Turning to the Chinese for help will still leave Britain with a long-term financial obligation. Plans often fail to deliver the promised outcomes because values have changed. So predicting what people will value in 30 years’ time is thought impossible, even though most innovations take this time to mature and spread. Yet as the Omega research at UCL has brought out, projects change, often for the better, as a result of debate about options. The techniques exist for making much better transport

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:16 Page 59

!"#$%&'()'(%*+,%-"./'(01%210(

3-456

FOOTNOTES continued 8 Barry Munday and Nicholas Falk, The ABC of Housing Growth and Infrastructure, The Housing Forum, 2014 9 Nicholas Falk and Reg Harman, Swift Rail and Growing Cities, Tramways and Urban Transit, January 2016 10 See feature in Modern Railways, December 2015 11 Ian Wray, Great British Plans, Routledge 2015 12 See for example TCPA publications like Connecting England, or The Lie of the Land in Hugh Ellis and Kate Henderson, Rebuilding Britain, Policy Press 2015 13 Each of these form case studies in reports of URBED’s TEN Group study tours 14 Reg Harman, High Speed Trains and the D evelopment and Regeneration of Cities, Greengauge 21, 2006 15 Reg Harman, High Speed Trains and the D evelopment and Regeneration of Cities, Greengauge 21, 2006 16 Nicholas Falk, Urban Policy and New Economic Powerhouses, Town and Country Planning, August 2015 17 See for example, Trams for Oxford: could light rail improve our historic cities, report of a UCL/URBED seminar, March 2015 www.urbed.coop 18 Reg Harman and Nicholas Falk, Developing Historic Cities: the case for an Oxford Metro, Tramways and Urban Transit May 2015.

choices17. But the benefits can never be realised if projects are conceived and executed in silos, and then implemented for lack of better options. So the centralised nature of both the private and public sectors must be corrected if we are to do more with less, to plan for posterity rather than austerity. So who would benefit from taking a longer-term and more holistic viewpoint, for example focussing on Britain in 2050, not just up till the next parliamentary election? The immediate answer is our children, and their children as well. So too would the poorer countries whose populations and economies are growing fastest. Less obvious are medium sized cities, such as Oxford, where there is a chance of securing more balanced growth and avoiding the diseconomies of over-crowding and pollution if funds were invested in good local transport systems18. Also anyone who owned land on the edge of fast growing cities, especially those that benefitted from improved infrastructure and favourable planning decisions, would receive an unexpected gift from the State, and therefore should be willing to accept paying a charge. We might even start rebuilding our lost capacity to engineer and supply transport products. In short the key to making better infrastructure decisions, as the new National Infrastructure Commission may want to consider, would be to switch from valuing narrow costs and benefits to considering the longer-term impact on capital of all kinds – economic and social as well as physical and natural when it comes to both designing and assessing major infrastructure projects. While this may sound impossibly complex, given the failures of efforts to agree where, for example, London’s hub airport should develop, it could be applied to the next big issues on the public agenda such as Crossrail Two, High Speed Three or boosting energy capacity, all of which are on

the National Infrastructure Commission’s agenda. Conclusions By using a form of Multi-Criteria Analysis, and analysing property values and trends, it would be possible to assess and value the impact of major infrastructure projects. The NIC could draw on examples from elsewhere to show the wider benefits. For example West London can draw lessons from the area around Charles de Gaulle airport or Schipol in Amsterdam. The Northern cities can usefully learn from the experience in the Dutch Randstad or the North Rhine area of upgrading local public transport. By setting the level of investment needed to match international competitors, and then allocating it where it will do most to close the gaps in living standards, we could reduce inequalities, and at least achieve the goal of social justice. When the projects then raise productivity, as they should, and help minimise waste, for example by cutting the time taken to get to work or saving the need to build expensive bypasses, we will also score on the economic goals of minimising waste. Of course political judgements will still need to be made, but at least they can take some account of longer-term consequences rather than short-term electoral arithmetic. Going from ‘stop go’ to planned investment cycles is crucial to rebuilding Britain’s productive capacity, and avoiding the kinds of scandals that arise from costs overrunning due to lack of qualified engineers. Finally, by changing behaviour so we use less energy and natural resources while improving wellbeing, for example through a great increase in cycling and walking or encouraging building new homes in the right locations, the NIC would pro- >>>

Issue 98 JULY-SEPTEMBER 2016

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:16 Page 60

TRANSPORT AND DEVELOPMENT | NICHOLAS FALK

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

56789 : ;'<"*+=)!0>

vide a model for sustainable development. That alone should be sufficient to overcome the opposition to acquiring land on the edge of growing cities at close to existing use values, and ploughing the uplift in land values back into improved local infrastructure. Of course there is nothing new in this. It is what

Ebenezer Howard proposed for Garden Cities and the post-war New Towns started to do. All it needs is for our ‘political leaders’ to focus infrastructure investment on making the lives of future generations better, a cause that people from all sides should support. ■

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

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

!0123 4 5%/67#8$9#('$:/*"%)";$5(+,''"

Planning in London

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:16 Page 61

PUBLIC SPACES | STEPHEN WOJCIK

Making successful public spaces Collaboration helps achieve better outcomes for roads users and London as a whole says Stephen Wojcik

It is an exciting time to be working on public realm projects in the capital. A host of major infrastructure and urban regeneration projects are transforming London’s public spaces and we’re seeing investment pouring into the capital both from government and the private sector.Crossrail work alone will see the construction of over 40 improved public spaces outside stations, totalling 190,000 sq metres over the next few years. As exciting as this prospect is, the design and construction of successful public spaces has never been such a complex task.We have a better understanding now of the role the public realm plays in placemaking, and the need to consider the impact of a project on its surrounding community from the very start of the design process – but there is still a great deal of room for improvement on this front, especially among the contracting and engineering fraternity. The ever more complex transport mix in the city also poses challenges. Highways account for around 80 per cent of London’s public spaces and policymakers want to see these streets used by as many user groups as possible, with a big push on cycling and pedestrian travel. This is the right thing to do from a planning perspective, but it adds further complexity to the already challenging job of designing and engineering public spaces to serve multiple users. Close collaboration between project partners is key to meeting these diverse and complicated demands.We have come a long way in this respect over the past ten years, but too often we still see a fundamental disconnect between different parts of the supply chain – with engineers, contractors, archi-

tects and planning teams operating in silos and not sufficiently sharing best practice.With London’s streets undergoing a widespread process of renewal and project challenges more complex than ever, now is the time to embrace a more collaborative approach to public realm planning and delivery. Sharing knowledge The changing demands on public realm projects are driving the evolution of new design standards. Experimentation is being widely encouraged and new concepts and techniques, from shared space idioms to smarter street furniture, are coming to the fore. This is no bad thing for the industry, but it also introduces risks that need to be carefully managed, particularly when it comes to materials.The behaviour and performance of construction products can vary greatly across different environments and under different circumstances.There are types of block paving that can both meet aesthetic requirements and be able to withstand the stresses of heavy traffic, but are unable to provide suitable texture and skid resistance. Conversely, some products may be aesthetically beautiful and perfect for foot and cycle traffic, but will deform and fail under the load of heavy buses and HGVs. Many local authorities now include representatives from different focus groups, such as cycling policy officers, in the consultation process to try and understand differing user needs and how a design might impact upon them.This is an important step but we also need to make sure that engineers and >>>

RIGHT: ‘Public domain’ – works in progress in the City of Westminster

Stephen Wojcik is head of consultancy services at FM Conway

Issue 98 JULY-SEPTEMBER 2016

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:16 Page 62

PUBLIC SPACES | STEPHEN WOJCIK

RIGHT: Improving the streetscape along Regent Street St James’s

contractors are involved early on to bridge the gap between the vision and the reality.Their practical, real-world experience of different materials means they are able to advise on potential performance and installation snags before the construction process begins.Where this information about a product’s behaviour is not known – for example if a new material has been procured from abroad – contractors and engineers have both the specialist knowledge and resources to conduct trials and ensure that it can meet performance standards.

BELOW: Widening footways along Regent Street St James’s

Planning in London

Smarter procurement Obtaining substantial quantities of materials or equipment within tight timescales has always been a challenge for large public realm schemes – particularly in one of the world’s busiest capital cities.With the placemaking agenda pushing towards more bespoke designs using weird and wonderful materials, we are seeing this type of procurement challenge becoming more and more common. Contractors and engineers have a broad range of experience

within their businesses of different project types, often cutting across sectors.Where materials or machinery cannot be procured, they are often well-placed to advise on alternative solutions.Getting them involved early on in the specification process will help to solve these headaches before they have the potential to disrupt project progress. We are already seeing some schemes starting to put this partnership approach into action.We recently carried out a project commissioned by the Baker Street Quarter Partnership – a Business Improvement District (BID) for the Baker Street area – and supported by funding from Transport for London (TfL) and contributions from Westminster City Council.The objective was to renovate the previously neglected Marylebone Road underpass near Baker Street Tube station. The concept behind the renovation was to turn the under-

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:16 Page 63

pass, which connects the southern and northern sides of the busy A501, into a ‘Wonderpass’ – a unique, walkthrough gallery experience that would promote the local community and encourage visitors to make use of this safer, alternative crossing. To achieve this, a bright red and white redesign featuring a timeline of facts and trivia about the local area was created by participatory arts group Sing London.The design featured a number of more unusual materials and getting the right colour match for the dominant red colour of the project was a particular challenge.However, thanks to our early involvement in the scheme we were able to support the design process by advising on materials which would be both procurable as well as suitable for high pedestrian footfall. Achieving compliance Just as public realm schemes are evolving, so too are the rules that govern their design and construction.From street lighting to highways maintenance codes, regulatory guidelines are continually changing to keep up with new practices and equipment.Making sure that project teams comprise as broad a range of expertise as possible from the start will make it easier to ensure that design concepts are compliant from the off. FM Conway, for example, was recently commissioned by

Westminster City Council to deliver phase two of the Piccadilly ABOVE: Two Way scheme – a £22 million project supported by funding Baker Street’s new from the Council, Transport for London (TfL) and The Crown ‘Wonderpass’ Estate to deliver a comprehensive public realm upgrade and improve traffic flows around Piccadilly, Pall Mall, Haymarketand Regent Street St James’s. A key aim of the project was to minimise overcrowding along the footways and make it easier for pedestrians to access this popular part of London.The design made provision for the construction of wider footways along Regent Street St James’s and Haymarket and the removal of any unnecessary street clutter, including the replacement of traditional street lighting columns with wall-mounted lighting on the buildings running along the streets. Highway specifications require a certain level of lighting for the safe operation of the carriageway so particular care had to be taken over the new design for the wall-mounted lighting systems.Working closely with the project architects, FM Conway and WSP Parsons Brinckerhoff, the professional services consultants for the project, advised on these requirements and helped source a new lighting system which could achieve the required carriageway lighting levels without the need to alter the new street layout. >>>

Issue 97 APRIL-JUNE 2016

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:17 Page 64

PUBLIC SPACES | STEPHEN WOJCIK

RIGHT: ‘Wonderpass’ before.. and BELOW the new entrance

Embracing collaboration Adopting a more collaborative approach will help projects realise significant efficiencies – both in the short term by speeding up the build process, and in the long term by helping us to identify and address durability issues before they become chronic maintenance problems. At a time when budgets remain under strain, local authorities ignore the potential savings this could bring at their peril. Perhaps most importantly, embracing collaboration will help us to achieve better outcomes for the roads users and London as a whole.With every part of the supply chain working together, we can support continued innovation while ensuring designs will stand the test of time and live up to what they promise on paper. ■ RIGHT: The Wonderpass showcases attractions in the area

Stephen Wojcik is head of consultancy services at FM Conway, supporting the delivery of projects across all design disciplines and leading the company’s support services teams. Stephen has worked with a variety of organisations to promote closer collaboration and improve the delivery of a number of high-profile surface transport projects in London and across the UK, including working with the Olympic Delivery Authority and supporting the redevelopment of Kensington High Street, Walworth Road and Exhibition Road.

Planning in London

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:17 Page 65

BOOKS | LEE MALLETT

Dystopia on trial Two books from Bristol University’s Policy Press aim to make the world a better place in the finest Utopian traditions of planning, writes Lee Mallett

Lee Mallett is director of Urbik and joint publishing editor of PiL

You might prefer the shorter, more polemic English Planning in Crisis, the title of which is surely on the money. The Conservatives’ second term in office (minus LibDem brakes) has, as authors Hugh Ellis and Kate Henderson observe, seen the state’s control over development value diminish further with the extension of permitted development rights. Deregulation – anathema to right-on planners, and undeserved manna to office-to-resi’ developers. Ellis is the head of policy at the TCPA and Kate Henderson is its chief executive, so you won’t be disappointed they stoutly propose a retro’ set of ’10 Steps to a Sustainable Future’. ‘10 Steps Back to the Future’ more like. A tale in two parts, English Planning in Crisis (or EPIC for short!) tells firstly ‘how planning in England has been systematically dismantled’, then sets out how to rebuild it to ‘meet the needs of society today and the needs of future generations’. Thomas More, progenitor of planning and socialism, and author of the first planning epic, Utopia, would approve. More’s orthodoxy cost him his head, as we all know. We arguably do not ‘need a new Planning Act based on the success of the 1947 planning system’ which is their first ‘idea’. But we do need ‘a vision for England’ that looks 50-100 years ahead and we need better planning under the existing system that restores the social dimensions of planning, with more invested in the quality of the process, not merely development control. Henderson and Ellis’s mount a convincing argument for this – with which we all probably agree. Their second idea is about ‘rebuilding institutions’. They call for for a ‘government department for spatial planning with coordinating responsibility for the development of England, and a Royal Commission on Sustainable Development’. Not sure about the need for a whole new department, but we do need national spatial planning. Also we seem to have a reasonable handle on what constitutes ‘sustainable development’. Every local plan bangs on about it in its Core Strategy. Save the money on the Commission and pay more proper ‘planners’ to plan might achieve more. We do however need, as suggested, a source of ‘unimpeachable objective data’ to plan properly. And as an example let’s cite the lack of good statistics on immigration in London which local politicians – and planners – were able to hide behind until the last national Census forced the real figures out into the open. Those statistics have driven the political debate in London ever since. There’s a whole range of data we need, while we’re waiting for ‘Smart Cities’ to become reality, to provide a reliable evidence-base on which to plan. Other ideas include instigating ‘a national conversation’ about The England We Want’. And they want to rejuvenate the ‘pale, male and stale’ make up of planning professionals drawn from broader informal networks. Nor would you expect a book

like this to omit the stats on the ‘slash and burn’ effects that austerity has inflicted on planning, and the concomitant effect on morale and planning’s attractions for graduates. They call for the restoration and renewal of Utopian philosophy at the heart of planners’ education. Idea Six is a big one. New legislation should create a ‘framework of equal rights in planning decisions’. The relationship between planning and people is confused, say the authors, and we need to straighten it out. Whereas applicants have the right to appeal decisions, the community does not. This ‘asymmetry’ raises the spectre of rights that date back to the Reform Act of 1832 – ie that property should define your civil rights. This fundamentally undemocratic paradox lies at the heart of planning’s problems, which excludes ‘the people’ from appealing against decisions they feel will fundamentally alter the places they live in. It’s a good point and worth a public argument. We should adopt a framework similar to the Aarhus Convention governing people’s rights that operates in Europe – that is if we are still in the EU – the authors suggest. Many will see this as erecting another major barrier to getting things done. Many might also support the idea. Probably not Conservatives. ‘A new generation of Garden Cities’ is called for. Really? There seems to be an awful lot that can be achieved within existing settlements, and Planning Minister Brandon Lewis is now fond of quoting that where local neighbourhood plans have been created, they are delivering more homes. Housebuilding is also now up by 46% on last year. This ‘idea’ is a recycled nostalgic longing for the unfettered post-war glory days of planning. Other ideas include reinstating zero carbon goals (global warming having moved the fundamental goal posts) and ‘access for all’ rules. Ho hum. On the perennially thorny subject of land taxation, they say: ‘Landowners do not own the development rights to their land and so the enhanced value that accrues when planning permission is granted should not, as a matter of economic and legal logic, accrue to them either.’ A new White Paper on land should ‘make proposals for the reintroduction of effective land taxation at a fair and modest rate that reflects the needs of both the community and the efficient operation of the land markets. It should consider reintroducing a Development Land Tax as part of Capital Gains Tax and potentially, Corporation Tax.’ Oh please, it’s been tried so many times. We now have CiL and S106 agreements. The more you tax development, the less you get. The lack of supply in London is the primary cause of price rises. The symptom is investors’ flocking to take advantage of this shortage while escaping their own unsustainable political regimes. While much of London is still covered in twostorey terraced houses. Planners were referred to as ‘the enemies of enterprise’ by

Issue 98 JULY-SEPTEMBER 2016

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:17 Page 66

BOOKS | LEE MALLETT

David Cameron in 2011. That remains a plausible view, but it is also a self-fulfilling prophesy if you happen to be running the country with it in mind. Failing to plan properly because there aren’t enough people and resources to do the job is equally the enemy of enterprise. Good planning is an essential facilitator of sustainable enterprise, and that can be used by all political ideologies – but only when it is fit for purpose. Some of Henderson and Ellis’ ten ideas would restore its utility – but by no means all. The claim in its elegiac conclusion that ‘what the English experience teaches us is, in relation to housing, when markets are liberated from regulation they fail almost immediately to produce the type, quality and quantity of homes that we need’. This is equally fallacious. What the English experience teaches us is that if creation of subsidised public housing ceases, and the private sector development market is heavily taxed through planning policy (not to mention again through Corporation Tax, Capital Gains Tax and then in the hands of shareholders), and that developable land supply is effectively restricted by those policies, it will concentrate on delivering products that fewer and fewer people can afford simply to exist. That dystopian outcome is the biggest risk factor eroding the sustainability of London’s economy at present, and the quality of life of its populous. That’s why planning should reinvigorate its Utopian roots, re-energise its institutions and educational ambitions, and restore to England a way of envisaging its future and planning for it. But the ideas in English Planning in Crisis are probably not sufficiently realistic to bring that about. They are in many ways reactionary. It is a highly principled cri-de-coeur for what made planning great, but perhaps not realistic enough today to make it great again. Phoenixes rising The title of Cities for a Small Continent, by the London School of Economics’ Anne Power, assisted by US urbanist Bruce Katz, refers to Richard Rogers’ 1997 Cities for a Small Planet to accompany his Reith Lectures, followed up by Cities for a Small Country in 2000, written with Power after their work together on the Urban Task Force. So you might guess what to expect – ie, more of the same thinking. Academics and practitioners alike, however, will find what it reports very useful, and powerfully affirmative about what has worked where. Cities for a Small Continent is practical handbook with much to consider in its 368 pages. It is basically a list of seven European cities compared – Belfast, Bilbao, Leipzig, Lille, SaintEtienne, Sheffield and Torino - which offers enlightenment on the ways these places have metamorphosed, more or less successfully in the post-industrial era. Power calls them ‘Phoenix cities’ and, according to Rogers’ introduction: ‘They offer powerful lessons for the 300-odd other European cities that have

Planning in London

lost their major industries and are now searching for new futures’. Her premise is that it is the ‘traditional engineering knowledge and expertise’ and the will to ‘rebuild entrepreneurial and problem-solving skills’ that ‘could make them the cities of tomorrow’. But most things about them remain ‘undervalued’ and herein lies their opportunity to reinvent themselves for a more sustainable future. Key to European cities, unlike their sprawling US relatives, is their density – a natural advantage in limiting energy consumption and the retained attractions of their, heritage, built and social. The handbook proposes that ‘a new industrial economy based on the assets of these cities offers a route to reducing the threat of climate change’. There are engaging quotes and local stories at the start of each chapter illustrating overarching issues, tables that compare issues for each city, diagrams that explain the stages of decline and resurrection, facts and figures about immigration, industries, speculation about the impact of things like ‘the Bilbao effect’, the virtues of ‘making’ and other faddish manifestations of renewal, plus a comprehensive set of source references and endnotes, and useful black and white illustrations. We are now, Power argues, in ‘phase three’ of the development of European cities, which is shaping ‘a custodial approach to city rebuilding which fits with Europe’s tight environment limits and soaring environmental ambitions – dense, highly urbanised, highly-populated, highly-developed, energy constrained, yet rich in urban, social, economic and environmental assets.’ European cities, she concludes, are ‘renewable resources’ which makes for a future that is ‘within reach’. Let’s hope so. War, recession, austerity and competition from elsewhere are the four apocalyptic horsemen still shaping European cities, with consequent immigration still a powerful influence. But arguably the biggest threat facing all seven cities right now, and the 300-plus mentioned by Rogers, is the potential disintegration of the EU posed by Brexit and the meltdown of the Euro, brought about the northern states’ inability to manage the financial incontinence raging in the south. The next edition of this handy handbook will need to tackle that - whether Britain Remains or Leaves. ■

Cities for a Small Continent – International handbook of city recovery, by Anne Power with Bruce Katz, published by Policy Press, University of Bristol, £19.99, 368pp – order from http://policypress.co.uk/res ources/kara-creative/citiesfor-a-small-continent English Planning in Crisis – 10 steps to a sustainable future, by Hugh Ellis and Kate Henderson Published by Policy Press, University of Bristol, £6.39, 104pp – order from http://policypress.co.uk/en glish-planning-in-crisis

pil98 JULY 2016.qxp_pil pp15-18 12/07/2016 14:17 Page 67