Planning matters

Like many of those with an interest in planning and development in London, I read Planning's recent interview with Jules Pipe, Deputy Mayor for planning, with interest, but also with a sense of déjà vu. The interview focused on Mayor’s track record of housing delivery in London, which Mr Pipe sought to defend, in the face of recent challenges from political opponents. With Sadiq Khan just re-elected for a third term, how will he avoid similar questions, in four, or even eight-years’ time?  

The scale and breadth of the housing delivery challenge in London is such that Lichfields has commented on it many times before, including specific consideration of: Council-led house building; suburban densification; standard method in London; tall buildings; and, MOL/Green Belt[1].

However, the recent debate does seem to have been stepping back and considering why overall levels of house building have not been at the level for which the Mayor has planned.

The Jules Pipe interview followed the report of the Panel of expert advisers appointed by Rt Hon Michael Gove MP’s to undertake a review of the London Plan to consider the aspects, which (in Mr Gove’s words) ‘could be preventing thousands of homes being brought forward, with a particular focus on brownfield sites in the heart of our capital’. The outcome of the Panel’s report is summarised in my colleague Ross Raftery’s blog. It is unquestionable that the figures within it[2] are stark. This includes:

• There has been a reduction in the number of residential units being permitted, with GLA data showing a reduction from over 89,000 in 2018/19 to 68,000 in 2021/22 and this is now down to 40,200 in 2022/23.
   

The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan had dismissed the Review as nothing more than a political ‘stunt’ to distract from the national record of housebuilding.

In response to the London Plan Review, the Deputy Mayor notes in the interview that the GLA does not need any ‘encouragement’, with more than 99% of the development seen at City Hall being ‘on brownfield land already’. Whist Mr Pipe is clear that he does not see the London Plan as a ‘barrier’ to housebuilding, he recognises: “Yes, sometimes it can be applied with a heavy hand and we are working to make sure that decision makers across London are taking decisions in the round and on balance.” One might interpret this as implicit support for the central thesis of the London Plan Review, without accepting its findings in full.

However, he does acknowledge that the capital needs more homes - “I can’t emphasise enough that the thing we need to sort is delivery and the Mayor is absolutely passionate about that”. 

Mr Pipe refers to ‘unhelpful’ NPPF paragraph 130 which resists built form that would be ‘wholly out of character with the existing area’ – a sentence that is easy to point to if you are, for example, unsupportive of a scheme which seeks to maximise height and density to deliver new homes around existing transport nodes, in an otherwise typically ‘low rise’ area. However, paragraph 130 does only apply if restrictions based on character are based on an up-to-date design code that is part of a development plan, so right now its bark is worse than its bite. My colleague, Simon Slatford’s recent blog comments on this issue[3].

Mr Gove wrote again to Mr Khan in March 2024, and directed a focused review of the London Plan by September 2024 (with early findings to be reported in June), on Industrial Land and Opportunity Areas, which the Secretary of State ‘fears’ to be ‘holding back’ delivery of homes. This letter also said that the next London Plan needs to be a strategic document.

This all points to the (sadly) all-to-familiar question, what is the answer to the housing crisis in London and did the current London Plan provide the right framework? It takes me back to my March 2020 blog on the London Plan. The writing was on the wall at that time, and the answer seemed clear. 

In March 2020, then Housing Secretary, Rt Hon Robert Jenrick MP wrote to Sadiq Khan referring to the ‘deeply disappointing’ delivery of housing over the preceding three years, ‘well below’ the assessment of housing need.  

Mr Jenrick made the point (just repeated by Mr Gove and identified by the London Plan Review) about whether the level of policy detail was right for a spatial development strategy (SDS):

“Your Plan added layers of complexity that will make development more difficult unnecessarily; with policies on things as small as bed linen. Prescription to this degree makes the planning process more cumbersome and difficult to navigate; in turn meaning less developments come forward and those that do progress slowly. One may have sympathy with some of individual policies in your Plan, but in aggregate this approach is inconsistent with the pro-development stance we should be taking and ultimately only serves to make Londoners worse off […] The necessary decisions to bring more land into the planning system have not been taken, the added complexity will reduce appetite for development further and slow down the system”.

The letter followed the Inspectors’ Report post the London Plan EiP which also noted that “It is clear from many of the representations made about the Plan, and the discussions that took place throughout the examination, that its length and complexity raise a number of significant issues about the fundamental role and purpose of a spatial development strategy in a three-tiered plan-led system” (IR para 41).

As a consequence, there was very clear guidance from the Inspectors (IR para 60) on the form of the next London Plan “… we would encourage the Mayor to consider setting out a more concise spatial development strategy, focussed on strategic outcomes rather than detailed means of implementation, when the Plan is next replaced”. We explored this matter with developers and local planning authorities in our Insight focus on the Role of Spatial Development Strategies.

The Inspectors had even mused that the failure of the London Plan to meet annual housing need justified a pause in the Examination for further work to be done, or whether the plan did not meet the tests of soundness and should be withdrawn (IR para 175).

Most intriguing – in terms of what might lie ahead politically – were the comments from the Inspectors on the approach to Green Belt “it is implausible to insist that the Green Belt is entirely sacrosanct without having considered what it comprises and the impact that it has on wider strategic objectives”. On the prospect of a ‘Green Belt review’ they noted that “A commitment to undertake one could nevertheless be contained within the Plan. Indeed, from our perspective it would be a logical step to do this as part of on-going future plan preparation and to assess, as an option, whether it would be reasonable to release Green Belt land in order to close the gap between housing need and supply in London”. (IR 455 - 456).

Of course, the London Plan is not the sole determinant of the level of housing delivery, but just as it rightly takes some of the credit for London’s success when sustainable development is secured, so it must be regarded as an important factor when homes are not built. It is inescapable that the shape and form of the next iteration of the London Plan – if prepared quickly - will be a vital lever for the Mayor in shaping what is achieved in this new Mayoral term.

 

So, with Sadiq Khan returned to office in City Hall, and the need to produce a new London Plan that will follow, what should the Mayor direct his Planning Policy team to focus on - given the consensus that housing delivery in London remains a critical issue?

The Mayor’s manifesto for re-election[4] said the following on housing:

In that ‘strengthening of planning’ the Mayor will need to consider how to put right the shortcomings in the London Plan – and how it is applied in practice (even if not how the Mayor’s team had intended) – that have become apparent over recent years; look at the range of causes of housing under-delivery in London. This must include an acceptance that the current London Plan does have a role in the overall level of supply. The Mayor can draw on guidance from developers, London Boroughs, built environment professionals, Londoners, and the very clear guidance provided by the previous Inspectors, and focus on preparing a new Plan for London that:

1. Steps back into its role as a ‘SDS’ to set the spatial strategy and provide strategic clarity in development policies to provide consistency across London as a whole, recognising the new world of local plans and national development management policies that will take shape under the regime being introduced by the LURA 2023.
    
2. Is slimmed down, avoids duplication, recognising it sits alongside the development management role of Borough Local Plans, the National Design Guide and anticipated National Development Management Policies.
    
3. Is precise in its wording, to avoid, as Mr Pipe put it, future ‘misunderstandings and misapplications’, or policies being applied too rigidly.  
    
4. Incorporates a clear presumption in favour of brownfield development, aligned to recommendations of the London Plan Review Panel so it is responsive to housing under-delivery if its strategy is not delivered.
    
5. Continues to set the standard to encourage optimisation of sustainable brownfield sites (including at transport nodes), through the design-led approach.
    
6. Alongside, recognises the reality of a gap between current land capacity and need and includes a London-wide review of London’s Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land (MOL).

On this final point, the Mayor must recognise that any limited harm caused by releasing some Green Belt /MOL land will, in many locations, be outweighed by the benefits of delivering the new homes that are needed for Londoners.  As unequivocally stated by the previous Inspectors “ ….from the evidence we heard, the inescapable conclusion is that if London’s development needs are to be met in future then a review of the Green Belt should be undertaken to at least establish any potential for sustainable development”.

Some Boroughs have also reached that conclusion and are in any event proposing to release land through their own Local Plans to assist with meeting development needs beyond the London Plan’s ten-year target period that ends in 2029 (for example, LB Enfield). Such greenfield development has well known benefits in unlocking delivery as it can be less constrained, is in sustainable locations around transport infrastructure, and also facilitates the delivery of much needed family sized and affordable housing. Even with the current position in the NPPF on Green Belt (principally paragraph 145), one would hope that the Mayor follows the lead of some London Boroughs. Notably, the Mayor’s 2024 manifesto did not include a pledge to protect the Green Belt, unlike those in 2016 and 2021.

Of course, in the event of a change in Government before the end of this year, the national policy picture would appear likely to provide encouragement and support for such a move, given much of London’s Green Belt falls within the likely definition of ‘Grey Belt’[5] and the Labour Party has a focus on 1.5m homes in the next parliament which will – inevitably – require a boost in London’s total output.  

If there is déjà vu in the current debate, we can be reasonably confident that change is afoot when it comes to planning in London.