Planning matters

London’s Mayoral election is fast-approaching and, consequently, the next four-year strategy on housing and planning in the capital will soon be clearer. After having looked at the core pledges from the four main contenders (here) and the housing plan of Labour’s Sadiq Khan (here), it is now time to delve into Conservative Party candidate Zac Goldsmith’s programme.

Zac Goldsmith has been MP for Richmond Park since 2010 and member of the Environmental Audit Committee since July 2010. His Action Plan for Greater London has been published in four parts (Housing, Transport, Environment, Safety), setting out the overall strategy that he’s planning to adopt, if elected mayor on 5 May. Unavoidably, Goldsmith’s first priority, as for the other contenders, is housing; he pledges to ‘start fixing London’s housing crisis’.

Zac Goldsmith’s housing plan puts a lot of weight on two core matters: his capacity for effectively working with Westminster and the importance of transport links as housing drivers.

The phrase ‘work(ing) with Government’ is repeated 16 times in his 21-page long Housing Manifesto, underlining what could be one of the main strengths of Zac Goldsmith as Mayor: his capacity for effectively dealing with central Government could ease the development of London-specific measures that otherwise (has anyone mentioned Khan?) could be difficult to implement.

On the other hand, Goldsmith’s core strategy for increasing housebuilding rates (up to the 50,000 homes/year target) relates to transport links, as a way of unlocking private land and making it more accessible. As reiterated in his Transport Manifesto, Crossrail 2, Sutton Tramlink, and the extension of the Northern, Bakerloo and Overground lines could ‘unlock [brownfield] land for more than 270,000 new homes’. Taking into consideration the fact that some of these transport expansions will not happen before 2030, transport links can be seen as an effective housing driver, but surely not as an immediate solution to the current crisis?

As for his main contender Sadiq Khan, a better and efficient use of public sector land is seen as an effective strategy to address housing needs, in the short term especially. Goldsmith refers to the London Land Commission Register when he estimates that, at least, 130,000 homes ‘for Londoners’ could be developed on land owned by local councils, the NHS and the Ministry of Defence; his plan is to work with the Government to release this brownfield land.

Another of Goldsmith’s measures that is supposed to increase housebuilding relates to reducing the period before a housing development has to begin (from 3 to 2 years) in order to avoid land-banking. On the other hand, to support smaller housebuilders in competing for land, Goldsmith plans to ‘packing up plots of land’, to give them a first right of refusal on any smaller public sector sites, and to directly commission smaller builders to join together to develop larger public sector sites, starting with Old Oak Common.

However, the housing crisis is not just a matter of land, as Goldsmith rightly recognises the role that planning and local councils must play. By far the most inventive of his measures is the ‘flying planners’ team, an expert planning support unit that would include planners, architects, and surveyors; their main duty would be to support local councils in dealing with major applications and, particularly, stalled sites. It’s interesting to note that the reason for setting up this ‘flying planners’ team is to address ‘the lack of planning capacity’, as raised by local councils and developers alike; Goldsmith does not seem keen on either working with or lobbying the Government to increase planning departments’ funds.

The ghost of overseas investors, appealing to an electorate that is seeking someone to blame for the current housing crisis, has been repeatedly homed in on by all mayoral contenders; Goldsmith is no exception. His main proposal to support average Londoners in accessing home ownership is to develop TfL land to release at least 30,000 homes that will be ‘ring-fenced’ for Londoners who have lived/worked in London for at least 3 years and who do not already own a home.

Affordable housing targets are one point where the two main mayoral contenders are on very different pages. Goldsmith is crystal clear in stating that he ‘will reject indiscriminate affordability targets’, calling Sadiq Khan’s pledge of 50% affordable housing ‘a fantasy target’. The reasons behind his position are well-explained and based on factors such as, the significant cost of developing London’s brownfield sites and the levels of Community Infrastructure Levy that developers have to pay. Goldsmith’s position is that, if higher targets are set for local affordable homes, these will not be built because ‘the site will not make financial sense to develop’.

Goldsmith’s strategy to maximise the number of affordable homes is, instead, based on making transparent and publicly available viability assessments, through ‘agreeing a standard viability assessment with London councils […] as Southwark, Greenwich and Islington have proposed’; funnily enough, these are all labour-led councils.

Local councils are, of course, fundamental players for anything that relates to affordable homes and Goldsmith does recognise this by providing some specific measures to support them. His intention is to require local councils to build more homes for middle and low income Londoners (intermediate housing), amending the London Plan to stress that local councils should support ‘genuinely mixed communities’. This goal has to be achieved also working with the Government to guarantee London’s local councils have ‘the maximum possible flexibility when it comes to the delivery of affordable housing’, and more powers to build homes themselves, through additional powers to borrow, charge higher levy on empty properties, and set their own planning fees.

The Manifesto’s reference to housing associations seems largely instrumental to underline Goldsmith’s approved amendment to clause 72(4) of the Housing and Planning Bill, where, in relation to the extended Right to Buy, he has secured the replacement of every one of London’s high value council house sold with two new affordable homes; it’s quite crucial underlining that the amendment does not specify that the new affordable homes are to be built in London, let alone even in the same Borough.

As for the other mayoral contenders, on some matters where public opinion seems quite settled it is politically too risky for Goldsmith to open a discussion. The estate regeneration programme falls into this category, as Goldsmith assures that, through a ‘Residents’ Development Guarantee’ in the London Plan, it will take place only with residents’ support, if he is elected.

Of no surprise is also his position on both Heathrow expansion and Green Belt protection. On the former, he is clearly against any further expansion; however, he does not openly support any other option but he will prioritise transport links between Central London and each of London’s key airports. Green Belt protection is mentioned in both Goldsmith’s Transport and Environment Manifestos (not in the housing one, though) and the Tory candidate is clear in his intention of protecting it from development; he will issue new planning guidance to make ‘unambiguously clear that protected means protected.’

‘London’s housing crisis is a generational problem, many years in the making. If elected Mayor on 5^th May, I cannot promise that I will have fixed it in just four’; this is how Goldsmith’s Housing Manifesto concludes and this is quite a rare, although honest, statement to include in an electoral manifesto.

Overall, on many issues Khan and Goldsmith seem to be more on the same page than not and this is quite natural when looking at what they pledge not to do (Green Belt development, and they will take a cautious approach to tall buildings and to estate regeneration). And when they do disagree, as on affordable housing targets, neither of their positions seems the ‘definitive’ solution (perhaps 50% target is too high, but not setting a target at all could be more risky in the run-up to the election).

In the end and in relation to housing and planning measures, it will be mostly a choice of which candidate to choose in relation to central Government’s policies. Khan’s strategy is more disruptive in the way he proposes to deal with Westminster, while Goldsmith’s tactic seems, quite naturally, to be one of being in general conformity and aiming for continuity. Although he calls for some London-specific measures and exceptions (office to residential PDR, estate regeneration, high value council homes replacement), Goldsmith heavily relies on his ability to work with central Government; will he be strong enough to raise his voice when discussing with the Government say, local council flexibility over affordable housing delivery? And will his associations with central Government be beneficial to his mayoral campaign?

We have to wait a little less than a month to know who will be the Mayor in charge of addressing the current housing crisis. What is sure is that, whoever it is going to be, he had better start working as hard as he can from 6 May; building almost 137 homes a day (or 200,000 over 4 years) is not going to be an easy job.