Planning matters blog

The London Plan: A new direction for planning in London

Jennie Baker 29 Nov 2017

The draft London Plan has been published today for consultation, starting on 1 December this year and ending on 2 March 2018. The aim is that the Plan will be examined next autumn, and published just a year later. For now, the draft Plan is a material consideration in determining applications but chances are that it will carry little or no weight, at least until there is a response to consultation submissions, or after its examination.

The Mayor is using the draft Plan to deliver his manifesto commitments, according to the Plan this is justified by the scale of his election victory. As a consequence, it sometimes deviates from existing national policy and guidance, including where it reflects ‘the particular circumstances’ of London. The Mayor also says its content is supported by ‘a proportionate evidence base’.

Lichfields won’t comment on the draft Plan’s length; instead, we focus on its ‘more ambitious and focused’ content that starts to set new directions for planning London from 2019 to 2041 (with a review of its housing targets before 2029). These include delivering 65,000 homes each year (each borough’s housing targets are confirmed as published in October), achieving a zero carbon target by 2050 (including carbon free travel), and 80% of all trips in being made by foot, cycle or public transport by 2041.

The first of the draft London Plan’s two new ‘pillars’ is the concept of ‘Good Growth’ – this is ‘sustainable growth that works for everyone, using London’s strengths to overcome its weaknesses’ i.e. growth that is ‘socially and economically inclusive and environmentally sustainable’. It is no longer a term just used for design. The second is the ‘Healthy Streets Approach’ that is already being taken by the Greater London Authority (GLA), which puts improving health and reducing health inequalities at the heart of planning for transport and public space.

Despite the ordering of its content into topic chapters, the draft Plan states that it has to be read as a whole, with the order of policies being ‘no reflection on their importance or weight’.

So, turning to the draft Plan’s highly detailed policy content – this straightway causes some minor difficulties as there are policies included in other paragraphs (e.g. on ‘tenure integration’), but we will ignore that for now – here are our main observations on the new stances:

Housing

The threshold approach is here to stay, confirmed as per the Affordable Housing and Viability SPG. A threshold approach is now proposed for small sites as well, to trigger the ‘presumption in favour of development’ policy. The impression is that, in London at least, this approach to planning will be further extended, if it can achieve its goals.
Rumours that the affordable housing threshold would be raised to 50% - or even 65% - were unfounded. The 35% affordable housing threshold (for viability purposes) will stay in place until at least 2021, while the strategic target remains set at 50%. The reference to 65% affordable housing comes from the related identified need in the London SHMA. Interestingly, boroughs may consider applying localised affordable housing thresholds (more than 35% 'where possible') in Opportunity Areas, to provide certainty and ‘help prevent land price rises based on hope value’.
The fast-track application determination route, initially designed for for-sale housing schemes that provide 35% affordable housing (and meeting other requirements), will be extended to more developments, such as Built to Rent, specialist older persons’ accommodation and purpose-built accommodation (both for students and shared living). The affordable housing tenure differs according to each development’s specifics.
Small sites (up to 0.25ha and capable of delivering 1-25 homes) are the main new element in the ‘increasing housing supply’ catalogue of policies. These should be included in brownfield registers, and some of them granted permission in principle, as the Mayor expects almost 25,000 homes a year to come from these sites over the next decade. A presumption in favour of residential developments will also apply in certain circumstances –including, infilling, the densification of existing schemes within PTALs 3-6 or within 800m of a Tube or rail station, or a town centre.
Existing supermarket sites, surface car parks, and edge of centre retail/leisure parks with sustainable transport should deliver ‘housing intensification’ through redevelopment, with new homes above e.g. commercial uses and transport infrastructure too. Town centre policies themselves hold no great surprises.
Minimum space standards in the current London Plan remain unchanged. Communal amenity space in a housing development, e.g. as in Build to Rent/ ‘compact living’ etc., is not a justification for not delivering these minimum standards.
The draft Plan is not anti-basement, nor anti the permitted development right (PDR) for changes of use of offices to homes – but it does not hide GLA support for Article 4 directions to prevent both (the office to residential PDR crops up numerous times and in many contexts).

Employment

The Central Activities Zone (CAZ) and Northern Isle of Dogs will ‘remain vital’ to London’s economic success, but growth elsewhere in town centres across London will be ‘equally important’. Future potential reserve locations for CAZ office functions are Stratford and Old Oak Common. Low cost business space and affordable workspaces are promoted via s106, with fleeting policy reference to viability evidence for the latter.
Strategic Industrial locations and Locally Significant Industrial Sites (SILs and LSISs) can be considered for intensification/ colocation and substitution (there is a handy diagram of what this means at Figure 6.3 in the draft Plan) – this has to be plan-led. Mixed use or residential development can take place on Non-Designated Industrial Sites but again, plan-led (and with higher expectations for affordable housing).

Design

Design policies seek to micro-manage the impacts of all manner of development projects, particularly tall buildings. While the development industry has said that increased densities will sometimes have to be at the expense of good design, the draft Plan states that housing density should result from a design-led approach linked to planned levels of infrastructure. The first step in delivering good design is an evaluation to identify the capacity for growth (PTAL is still a measure for referable developments). Then design analysis and visualisation are required, masterplans and design codes follow, and design scrutiny using design review is undertaken.
Post-Grenfell, a Fire Statement will have to be submitted with all major development proposals.

Green infrastructure

The Green Belt, local green and open spaces, green roofs, street trees will all be protected. Metropolitan Open Land is not protected in the same policy terms; the local plan process should be used to change boundaries, whereas Green Belt ‘de-designation’ will not be supported. There is a new ‘urban greening factor’ for assessing new developments.

Transport

Car-free developments (housing and commercial) feature in well-connected locations in new maximum parking standards that no longer give ranges.
The Mayor continues to oppose Heathrow’s expansion – unless there will be no additional noise or air quality harm.
Despite concerns around uncertainty already expressed, Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy (MCIL) will be charged, to secure funding towards transport infrastructure of strategic importance ‘such as Crossrail 2, and potentially other strategic transport infrastructure’.

Our first conclusion today is that the draft Plan requires some stiff editing before submission, with a lot less detail (after all, what will there be left for the supplementary planning guidance mentioned here and there in the draft Plan, that can be more ‘fleet of foot’?).

Second, the draft London Plan justifies the ‘Good Growth’ pillar as follows:

‘Every individual decision to provide affordable housing helps to make the housing market fairer. Every decision to make a new development car-free helps Londoners to depend less on cars and to live healthier lives. Every decision to build or expand a school improves the prospects of the next generation of Londoners.’

But from the development sector’s perspective, taking this approach has been instrumental in the draft plan’s policies taking on such a phenomenal degree of micro-control.

We can see a well-thought through strategic spatial development strategy, currently buried deep within the overly complex consultation document: that strategy needs to be extracted, published and consulted on and (eventually) approved in its own right. It is that spatial strategy that should be the new strategic plan for London.

The Draft London Plan can be read here.

Further analysis of the Draft London Plan and its implications can be read here. Click here to subscribe for updates.

Has the Government made Peace with the CIL Review?

Grant Swan 28 Nov 2017

For those of you eagerly awaiting an update to our previous Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) blog, SIT and LIsTen, the Government has - as previously promised - provided its initial recommendations in response to the CIL review in the Autumn Budget. For those not in the above category (CIL anoraks are apparently a niche group), planning obligations and CIL remain a significant consideration in the viability and deliverability of development, and therefore the Government’s stated first Budget objective of supporting more housebuilding.

The independent CIL Group, led by Liz Peace, prepared their report ‘A New Approach to Developer Contributions’ in October 2016 and this was released in February 2017 alongside the Housing White Paper. The Group’s report provided a number of recommendations, with the overarching objective of simplifying the levy, a laudable and welcome aim, but not an easy proposition.

We identified five headlines from the Review report in our February 2017 blog. So to what extent does the Government propose to take these on board?

A ‘new approach’ of ‘Local Infrastructure Tariff’ (LIT), ‘Strategic Infrastructure Tariff’ (SIT) and s106

LIT is not mentioned but the ‘3 tier’ CIL and planning obligation regime is been pursued through the introduction of SIT.

LIT rates linked to house sale prices

CIL indexation is to be linked to house price inflation, rather than CIL rates themselves. Whilst indexation is important – as highlighted by the Wandsworth/ Peabody case – this proposal does not get to the nub of the issue.

The CIL Group’s report recommendation to simplify CIL rates themselves has seemingly not been progressed. In fact the Government appears to want to do the opposite, proposing to consult on charging authorities having greater opportunities to vary CIL rates based on land use changes, so as to ‘better reflect the uplift in value’ - for example, higher CIL rates could be charged for the development of agricultural land for new homes, than say the residential development of industrial land.

Mandatory LIT charged on new development with no reliefs and exemptions

Silence on this proposal, as it currently stands.

Small developments only pay LIT and larger/strategic development would be able to negotiate s106 obligations, s106 pooling restrictions removed and potential offset LIT against s106 obligations

Pooling restrictions are to be removed… but only in ‘certain circumstances’ such as in low viability areas, or where significant development is planned on several large sites. The Government claims this will avoid ‘unnecessary complexity’.

However, the absence of the potential to offset LIT against s106 obligation contributions is a major omission. The current disconnect between strategic developments and associated infrastructure delivery seems likely to continue. In recommending offsetting, the CIL Group noted:

A further benefit of the combined LIT/Section 106 approach will be that large developments will be able to address, through the Section 106, not only the funding of the infrastructure but also the delivery of the infrastructure, which has been one of the failings of CIL.

SIT contributing to identified infrastructure projects similar to the current Mayoral CIL

SIT is to be taken forward with consultation on whether this should be used by Combined Authorities and planning point committees to fund both strategic infrastructure (as the Mayoral CIL does for Crossrail in London), and local infrastructure too.

So where does this leave us? Still facing uncertainty arising from ongoing issues with the detailed and technical workings of CIL; more clarity is certainly anticipated when DCLG launches the proposed consultation on taking these headline measures forward – and we hope, further CIL amendments that resolve day-to-day problems inherent in the current rules.

The Government’s measures are seeking to make the CIL regime encapsulate opportunities for land value capture, as evidenced by the proposal for more variance in CIL rates and the commitment to speed up the process of setting and revising CIL. The latter also recognises that the current two stage consultation process and evidence base requirements can present a time and cost barrier to charging authorities putting CIL in place. This particular proposal is to be commended and anything that can make the levy more responsive should be welcomed.

However, those dealing with CIL ‘on the ground’ will no doubt recognise the need for the CIL Regulations themselves to be more transparent, simplified and useable. Introducing greater ‘flexibility’ in terms of CIL rates (and the more extensive evidence base needed to support this) should be alongside streamlining the Regulations and simplifying how they are applied to development projects – a very difficult balance.

So CIL is here to stay for now and we await the consultation…

Back to the future for industrial strategy?

Ciaran Gunne-Jones 28 Nov 2017

Monday saw the long-awaited launch of the government’s Industrial Strategy. But you have to have some sympathy for Business Secretary Greg Clark – by mid-morning the headline writers had become somewhat distracted by news of a certain royal engagement. That’s a shame, because the Strategy is intended to be one of the government’s flagship policy initiatives and rightly deserves attention.

Further analysis of the Strategy’s key implications will follow from Lichfields, but in the meantime, here are 10 of its highlights:

It’s a long document, some 130 pages, as long as the consultation Green Paper which preceded it earlier this year. Whilst it contains an overview section of sorts, you wonder whether a punchy executive summary version might have been helpful to distil the essence of what the government is seeking to achieve and to help reach the widest audience. It was also accompanied by a set of other useful policy papers and analysis, including a review of the Catapult Network programme.
It is unashamedly an “industrial strategy”, a term which had until recently fallen out of fashion. The perceived failures of previous industrial strategies (recall DeLorean?) have lingered long in Whitehall’s collective memory. More recently, Vince Cable reintroduced the concept during his tenure as Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills within the Coalition government. However, from very early on in her premiership, Theresa May had called for a “proper industrial strategy” to deal with the challenges of low productivity, regional disparities and, of course, Brexit.
The “10 pillars” set out in the Green Paper are now the “5 foundations”: ideas; people; infrastructure; business; and places. If the concepts are broadly similar, the rationalisation is probably helpful. It may also be that someone has dusted down HM Treasury’s five drivers of productivity framework that was widely applied in the 2000s, which is perhaps not surprising given that improving productivity is a core aim of the Strategy.
An independent Industrial Strategy Council will be established, comprised of investors, economists and academics from across the UK. This will operate alongside the Economy and Industrial Strategy Cabinet Committee, chaired by the Prime Minister, which will remain responsible for driving delivery across government. There is a real sense that government wants the Strategy to cut across all government departments – something recently advocated by Michael Heseltine – and shape policy-making at all levels.
It adds detail to some of the announcements trailed in last week’s Budget – see the Lichfields’ summary – for example the Transforming Cities Fund, further devolution deals and the Oxfordshire housing deal. It confirms how important the Industrial Strategy is intended to be in the policy hierarchy and as an agenda which binds together all of the government’s various initiatives to support economic growth across the UK - from funding to devolution to skills.
The Strategy avoids “picking winners” – rejected as part of the Green Paper – but does set out a clear agenda around sector deals, which act as partnerships between the government and industry on sector-specific issues and funding settlements. Just four are agreed (artificial intelligence, automotive, life sciences and construction), while others are in the works (creative, manufacturing and nuclear), and the challenge is there for other sectors to follow.
Local industrial strategies are now a defined deliverable to be brought forward by local enterprise partnerships and mayoral Combined Authorities. These are to be agreed with government, with the first to appear by March 2019 (anything else happening that month?). Areas with potential to drive wider regional growth, focusing on clusters of expertise and centres of economic activity, will be prioritised. Existing strategic economic plans and local economic strategies may need to be reframed or refreshed.
There’s some important detail in the Strategy. For example, there are indications that the government will broaden appraisal methodologies to ensure the full potential for infrastructure to support local economies over the long-term is given weight in decision-making. It also introduces a ‘rebalancing toolkit’ to improve the focus, quality and transparency of ‘rebalancing’ evidence in strategic business cases, particularly to support high value transport investments in less productive parts of the UK. I’ve recently experienced first-hand the importance of making the evidential case for just this type of infrastructure project.
There’s more specific recognition of the role of housing delivery in supporting the growth of local economies, something widely identified in consultation responses to the Green Paper. Interestingly, housing has already accounted for nearly 40% of National Productivity Investment Fund allocations made to date. The government reiterates that it wants to support places with ambitious and innovative plans to build additional homes where they are needed, and which will support wider economic growth.
There’s not much reference specifically to planning, other than in relation to housing delivery. That might be a missed opportunity, as after all, local planning authorities are also charged with meeting the needs of modern businesses and their supply chains, particularly where local advantages exist (albeit these are not always well understood). It will be interesting to see if government takes the opportunity to bring the Industrial Strategy firmly into the planning lexicon as part of the draft revised National Planning Policy Framework expected in Spring 2018.

There’s much else to consider and reflect on; watch this space for further analysis from Lichfields on the Strategy’s key implications.

Innovation in planning and construction…

Michael Hepburn 27 Nov 2017

Released in 1982 when I was 7 years old, Blade Runner established itself very quickly as a classic movie. It was based on Philip K Dick’s novel, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

Admittedly it was never one of my favourite movies, as I never really understood it, and found it very dark. Only as I’ve got older and watched it a few more times have I eventually understood the different layers to the story, the production, and the design of the film. I’ll be interested to see how Blade Runner 2049 compares to the original 35 years on.

The movie’s affiliation with the North East is particularly strong given the futuristic cityscape at the beginning of the film, with its bright lights, industrial urban fabric and flames flickering in the sky – the Los Angeles of 2019 it portrays could easily be mistaken as the Wilton Chemical Plant. As Ridley Scott lived on Teesside it is clear the prominent skyline of the Tees Valley played an influential role in the setting of this futuristic classic.

The underpinning basis of Blade Runner is: as robots evolve, at what stage do they become human; and as our lives become more and more computerised, at what stage do we start to become machines?

This conundrum of continued evolution of innovation and artificial intelligence clearly applies to the construction industry today.

It is just over a year since Mark Farmer issued ‘Modernise or Die’, an 80-page report, setting out 10 recommendations to fundamentally change the way the construction industry operates, particularly in the delivery of housing where the UK is falling severely short – hence housing lying at the heart of Philip Hammond’s Budget last week. Among Farmer’s proposals were the need for major changes to the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB); the creation of a new build housing pipeline; and a tax on clients that fail to innovate.

There was nothing in the report which you would disagree with; more a confirmation of the issues that the construction sector has experienced over several years; and which acts as a useful barometer of the lack of progress that has been made.

To be genuinely successful in delivering the housing that is required not just across the North East, but the country as a whole, the private sector cannot achieve this on its own; it must enhance its ability to work in collaboration and partnership and share intelligence, technology and resources with other organisations. The Home Building Fund and Accelerated Construction Programme, coordinated by the HCA on behalf of the Government can assist as part of their aim is to exploit offsite construction methods to deliver up to 15,000 housing starts on surplus public sector land at a faster rate.

The construction industry must also work with training and education providers, Universities and with the Government to radically transform how their workers, from those just entering the industry to those who are looking to retrain. As technology advances and the construction industry continues to evolve, then the upskilling of its workforce is going to be critical.

Modern methods of construction and innovative ways of working are not going to be a genuine success unless we know where we are going to find the skills we need. To seize the opportunities presented by these emerging technologies, training programmes provided by higher and further education is going to be vital. Offsite modular construction provides significant benefits to projects that include shorter construction programmes, reduced costs, less waste and consistent quality as a factory setting allows for strict plant conditions.

We are working in a time where if we are going to make real inroads in solving the multi-layered housing crisis, then we must really think outside of the box. Working with JP Fraser, the MD of Orca LGS Solutions Ltd, is an example of someone who doesn’t even see a box! Lichfields are currently assisting Orca in driving forward development opportunities to demonstrate genuinely innovative approaches to construction. JP’s passion and enthusiasm for wanting to do something different is unparalleled. As he summed up to me:

The principle of successful modern methods of construction is about flexibility, partnership and collaboration. What I am looking to achieve through our developments is to demonstrate our potential to disrupt. Through design, technology and software I want to show how at a scale we can make a change and a difference. We are challenging the norm with a simple mobile manufacturing solution that can be delivered anywhere using local people.

Through our developments I want to bring all the relevant players together to make a contribution – that includes Local Government, Local Authorities, Government Departments, Education, Registered Providers and Homes England. It’s not complicated – it’s a design-led, technology driven process that can be repeated over and over again, and as such can be so effective and successful because of its simplicity – that’s the beauty of it, we are doing more, better, with less.

Having a development that has strong ties to the local college in close proximity is really important. It means we can provide the job opportunities to local students to learn about Light Gauge Steel (LGS) construction, and actually see the end product of their endeavours. The sense of achievement they get from having an influential role in building the houses, whilst learning and developing new skills is great to see. Supporting local young people means we are keeping the pound local through our schemes whilst training the construction workers of tomorrow.

The projects Lichfields are supporting JP with in the North East will enable Orca LGS to showcase the added value modern methods of construction and innovation can generate for housing developments to local authorities, potential partners and politicians.

It is not just the private sector that must evolve and not standstill. The public sector has an important role to play too – however, there continues to be a risk averse culture within local authorities that holds them back from making a difference.

There is the overly used phrase ‘open for business’ by many local authorities I’ve worked with across the country, with an interest in wanting to do something different and innovative – but quite often being just at face value, with no true commitment to see things through. Instead when it comes to specific schemes and details local planning authorities tend rely on implementing ‘safe’ planning policies, or indeed use planning as a regulation tool rather than an opportunity to be brave, and to facilitate innovative development.

We (public and private sector) all need to stand out from the crowd, whilst continuing to add value for our clients and customers. Innovative approaches like modern methods of construction must continue to be driven forward in order to increase the speed of delivery of providing homes people require and demand. If we continue to standstill and not challenge the norm we will not solve the national housing crisis we are faced with.

It will be interesting to see how the development and construction industry grasps and embraces the opportunities innovation techniques can bring, and see these played out in the years to come. I wonder when I’m 74 in 2049 and I dust down the blue-ray disc of Blade Runner I will be living in a world where the buildings and streets are a representation and influence of the classic movie, proving it was ahead of its time?

Planning matters

The London Plan: A new direction for planning in London

Has the Government made Peace with the CIL Review?

Back to the future for industrial strategy?

Innovation in planning and construction…

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

1999

Planning matters

Subscribe