Planning matters

Our award winning blog gives a fresh perspective on the latest trends in planning and development.

UK hotels market after Covid-19 – an uneven recovery?
It is stating the obvious that the hospitality sector was one of the hardest hit by the Covid-19 pandemic. The majority of businesses that provide holiday accommodation were forced to close in the first lockdown that started in March 2020, and, even after some restrictions were lifted, visitor confidence was slow to recover.
ONS figures show that consumer spending on hospitality started to increase once travel was permitted, but remained at less than 70% of pre-pandemic levels in May 2021.
This blog considers which UK cities have driven the hotel sector’s recovery since the pandemic and considers factors which will shape future growth.  
 

Domestic holidays and city breaks lead the recovery

The table below shows the top and bottom five locations in the UK in terms of hotel occupancy and revenue per available room in 2021 compared to pre-Covid (2019) figures.

Source: Colliers UK - The Recovery of the UK Hotel Market

1.  2021 occupancy measured as a % of 2019.

2.  RevPAR measured as a % of 2019. Revenue per available room is a performance measure used in the hospitality industry. RevPAR is calculated by multiplying a hotel’s average daily room rate by its occupancy rate.

In terms of occupancy, the locations that fared best in 2021 were those that are either popular domestic holiday or city break destinations in their own right (Bournemouth, Norwich), as well as those that are strategically located near to tourism hotspots (e.g. Gloucester – which is close to the Forest of Dean and the Cotswolds). The top five locations for occupancy recovery in 2021 were all in the south of England, again indicating that domestic summer holidays drove the bounce back in 2021.
The locations that recovered less well in 2021 were the major cities of England and Scotland, including London, Glasgow and Manchester. The hotel markets in these cities all rely heavily on business travel, international tourism, and major cultural and sporting events, most of which were not in full flow in 2021.
 

Looking ahead

2022 has been a more positive year for the hospitality sector, with UK average hotel occupancy reaching 80% in June 2022, compared to 57% in June 2021. This has been driven by a rebound in both leisure and business travel, including international tourism.
The resumption of major events this year such as a full-scale Edinburgh Fringe taking place this summer will have provided a boon to hoteliers (see my colleague Arabella’s blog on visitor accommodation challenges in Edinburgh). When it was recently announced that Liverpool will host the 2023 Eurovision Song Contest, asking prices for accommodation reached an eye-watering £8,000 a night – demonstrating that major events remain an important driver for hotel demand in the UK’s major cities.
Locations such as Newcastle, Blackpool and Bristol remain popular destinations for domestic travel, bolstered by demand for hen and stag parties. It is likely they will remain strong locations for the hotel sector.
Looking ahead, ongoing inflationary pressures and the cost of living crisis will no doubt be a concern for the hospitality sector. The silver lining for UK hoteliers may be that as belts are tightened, people may choose to take domestic holidays or UK city breaks rather than travelling abroad. Another silver lining for the UK hospitality sector is that the weak pound is acting as a spur for international travel to the UK, with US travellers regarding UK travel as being ‘on sale’.
Overall, although 2023 is likely to see challenges to all sectors of the economy, there will be opportunities for growth in the hotel market across the UK. Lichfields has built an enviable track record assisting in the delivery of hotel projects – ranging from stylish city locations to boutique rural retreats. For more information on Lichfields’ work in hotels please click here. If you would like to discuss opportunities for the market or a particular project, please get in touch and we will be happy to help.

Header image: The Athenaeum 

 

CONTINUE READING

Greening the Grey

Greening the Grey

Tara Johnston 23 Nov 2022
The coronavirus pandemic has emphasised the importance of urban green spaces. The positive impact of green space to our mental health and wellbeing, physical health and fitness is generally accepted. According to The People and Nature Survey for England, led by Natural England in July 2020 (published in March 2021) almost half the population (46%) say that they are spending more time outside than before the pandemic [1]. The Survey also concluded that urban green spaces continue to be the most popular type of green space visited, with 50% of adults reporting a visit in a month.
Urban greening, once a term that was used to describe simple corner parks and the inclusion of trees within development proposals, now encapsulates a wide variety of creative designs, such as pocket parks, living walls, green roofs, urban farms and allotments [2].  As the climate change emergency intensifies, built environment professionals have been increasingly challenged to find new ways to use green infrastructure solutions to make cities more environmentally friendly and attractive places to live.  
When the Olympic Park in London was created it was acknowledged as being the most biodiverse new landscape in the UK [3]. Ten years since the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park is the largest new urban park in the UK for over a century. I recently attended a design-led evening guided tour by LDA Design which discussed how the planting, habitat creation and design of the park sought to future-proof a hotter and wetter London. This tour demonstrated the multi-faceted approach to design, which allows the park to support a multitude of activities and wildlife, helps tackle the urban heat island effect and provides sustainable urban drainage systems to manage high rainfall events, which has successfully taken 4,000 homes out of flood risk. The Park also contains the ‘Great British Garden’, which integrates new planning designed for the Games with the hedgerows and woodlands that occupied the banks of the canal for years. This space provides a diverse green urban environment, which supports wildlife and biodiversity, as well as providing an aesthetic and communal asset.
The Olympic Park was successful as the principles of green infrastructure were built into the masterplan at the start of the process. Given the status of creating a legacy of the Olympics, there was a recognition of social and environmental values as well as financial values which has resulted in a successful urban park landscape.
Planning policy is catching up and there has been shift at national and local level that reflects the view of the increasing importance of urban greening. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2021 changes include the addition of a reference to the importance of trees in improving the character and quality of urban environments (Paragraph 131).
London has been forward thinking in its approach to urban greening. The adoption of the London Plan (2021) brought the introduction of an urban greening policy (G5) which states that “major development proposals should contribute to the greening of London by including urban greening as a fundamental element of site and building design, and by incorporating measures such as high-quality landscaping (including trees), green roofs, green walls and nature-based sustainable drainage.”
With this policy, the urban greening factor was introduced. This requires all new major developments and refurbishments in London to include a greening element to buildings and the public realm. The purpose of this is to improve biodiversity, rainwater run-off, air/noise pollution and urban temperature regulation. The increasing importance of urban green space has not only been seen in London, but throughout the UK. In March 2021, Liverpool City Council made a commitment to protect all of the city’s parks and green spaces in perpetuity with the Fields in Trust charity [4].
Biodiversity net gain will mark another shift in requirements, pushing developers to consider vegetation and ecological benefits to their surroundings by requiring developments to deliver a minimum of 10% biodiversity net gain, through the implementation of a mandatory pre-commencement condition. It is currently anticipated that the condition will start to be imposed in November 2023, but this is already being requested by many Local Authorities. 
The intention of these new policies is to help create more sustainable high-quality places. But does it always work? When it comes to implementing urban greening, a main issue is the engineering and maintenance required. Areas of planting are more time consuming to maintain as they require watering, weeding, pruning and to keep them visually attractive, and litter removal is often required. Ongoing maintenance costs often get passed on to occupants through service charges. It is also acknowledged that there can be viability issues with urban greening as there can be significant costs for the installation of green features such as green walls and roofs. Without good management practices, these features can suffer and become a visual amenity issue. To realise the benefits from urban greening tools, it will be important to ensure that the correct management and maintenance is in place for the future of the development which can secured via the planning process, through planning conditions and legal agreements.
In our projects at Lichfields we are seeing an increase in diverse and innovative approaches for urban greening within development schemes.  We recently secured hybrid planning permission for U+I at Morden Wharf which is located on the southwestern end of the Greenwich Peninsula. The permission includes up to 1,500 homes set in more than six acres of high-quality public realm including a 4-acre landscaped public park opening up more than 275m of Thames riverfront that includes a river beach. Amongst other measures, the buildings will also feature vertical green façades that will help to provide natural screening and improve air quality.
As built environment professionals, we need to continue to explore new ways to help achieve net zero and adapt to the climate change impacts we are already facing. A crucial part of this is embedding urban greening into developments by careful planning and consideration early in the design process to ensure that these are a success for future generations to come.
 
 
 

References

[1] The People and Nature Survey for England: Monthly interim indicators for July 2020 (Experimental Statistics) - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
[2] The Importance of Urban Greening | Outdoor Living Walls (ansgroupglobal.com)
[3] https://www.queenelizabetholympicpark.co.uk/our-story/how-we-work/design-excellence/the-park-and-open-spaces
[4] https://www.fieldsintrust.org/News/liverpool-city-council-pioneering-commitment-to-protect-all-parks-forever

 

CONTINUE READING

Autumn Statement 2022: A very different fiscal statement
Another year of crises and turbulence has left us once again with yet another new Chancellor delivering a fiscal statement in ‘unprecedented’ times. The inter-related challenges of the war in Ukraine, COVID recovery, supply side inflationary shocks and concerned market analysts leave the country facing ‘eye wateringly difficult’ decisions to tackle inflation, restore stability and get debt falling.
 
So less than eight weeks since Kwasi Kwarteng delivered the now infamous “mini-Budget” which stood out as the largest tax-cutting budget for 50 years, his successor Jeremy Hunt pivoted sharply to measures that will mean the highest tax burden in the UK’s post-war history by 2027-28 – equivalent to some 37% of total GDP.
 
After the fallout from the mini-budget, the markets, the Bank of England (BoE), and now the OBR have all had their say: any talk of fiscal headroom has vanished. Far from the boosterism of previous statements, this government’s priorities are now stability, growth and public services.
   
 

Return to the orthodoxy

To reassure markets after recent turmoil, we were left in no doubt that the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) are back in the centre of things, having been essentially ignored by Kwarteng. Their independent forecasts for the economy and the public finances arguably now have more weight than at any point in the OBR’s 12 years of existence.
 
The OBR forecasts are similarly pessimistic in the near term to the Bank of England (BoE) (announced earlier this month), with a 1.4% decrease in GDP forecast for 2023 (1.5% BoE) but are more optimistic that this will not be the long recession forecast by the Bank of England, rebounding to growth of 1.3% in 2024 (-1% BoE 2024) and 2.6% in 2025. Even in this scenario, the OBR forecast that the ‘output gap’ will not see the economy recover to potential output levels until mid 2027 (i.e. when energy prices and inflation are set to drop) assuming that monetary policy responds to the fiscal tightening with equivalent easing.
 
Comparison of forecasts for real GDP growth

Source: OBR, November 2022 Economic and fiscal outlook 

Much of the difference can be attributed to the policy measures announced, that the OBR have been privy to in arriving at their forecasts. The reaction of the Bank of England will at least in part tell us whether the fiscal and monetary policies are in lock step.
 
Similarly, historically sluggish business investment, already the focus of the Prime Minister’s Budget last year when Chancellor, is 8% lower than pre pandemic levels and set to stay lower until Q3 2025.
  
Business Investment levels

Source: OBR, November 2022 Economic and fiscal outlook 

The Chancellor has been clear that addressing the ‘fiscal black hole’ means that all spending decisions have to add up to the forecasts which will really put the OBR in control. Therefore in a marked reversal from the last fiscal event there were no ambitious supply side reforms or investments, although planning reform remains part of the agenda with announcements to follow.
 
 

Funding for local Government

The Autumn Statement confirms that departmental budgets will be maintained at least in line with the budgets set at last year’s Spending Review, albeit inflation is eroding these in real terms. Under the previous period of austerity, local government funding saw a disproportionately high proportion of the overall cuts. According to Centre for Cities analysis, local government in England saw its budget cut by more than half between its peak in 2009/10 and 2015/16 and the Institute for Fiscal studies analysis of the Autumn Statement make clear that the cuts of the 2010’s will not be undone for the Department for Levelling Up Housing and Communities (labelled as Housing and Communities in the chart below).
 

Source: IFS Analysis of Autumn Statement, 2022

 
Local authorities – some of which are claiming they are close to bankruptcy including Kent and Hampshire – will therefore likely welcome the additional flexibility granted by the Chancellor to raise Council taxes, providing some of the fiscal devolution that local areas have asked for. However social care will consume much of this. The Chancellor has allowed Council tax to be increased by up to 5% including a 2% social care precept.
 
 

Levelling up

Levelling up appears to be back, but under the austere spending expectations there were no ‘rabbits out the hat’. The second tranche of the Levelling Up Fund will be £1.7 billion – similar to the first tranche.
 
New and confirmed devolution deals for Cornwall, Suffolk, Norfolk, and the North East (which is awaiting confirmation of its constituents as to the inclusion of Durham) were announced.
 
Devolution was also mentioned as a driver of growth. In particular, the trailblazer deals for Greater Manchester and the West Midlands, with the potential for ‘departmental-style’ settlements at the next spending review with the suggestion that this is a move away from the much maligned competitive bidding processes.
 
The proposed Investment Zones – one of the flagship proposals in the mini budget – have largely been watered down and will be ‘refocused’ around universities but there will be no tax reliefs or budgets associated with them. The existing expressions of interest from local authorities will not be taken forward which will no doubt leave many frustrated.
 
The government has also scrapped the list of infrastructure projects that were flagged for acceleration in the Growth Plan but there was a return to more of the priorities of the levelling up era. The Chancellor recommitted to HS2, Northern Powerhouse Rail and East West Rail investments.
 
There was notably no mention of the Shared Prosperity Fund, which poses some technical questions about the ability for local areas to spend the expected £400m fund which was to replace EU funds.
 
  

Housing and planning

The Autumn Statement offered little by way of specific measures on housing and planning, so industry minds will instead be focused on the upcoming planning reforms – likely being re-drafted given the changing priorities of the day, the return of Michael Gove to his former brief, and the levelling up and regeneration bill currently passing through the House.
 
The exception was the stamp duty cuts which are now scheduled to continue to April 2025, when they will be tapered. Despite this measure, the OBR house price forecasts are somewhat stark – with prices not forecast to return to current levels until 2027, this is likely due to the overwhelming effect of mortgage costs outweighing any fiscal benefits from the stamp duty relief.
  
House Price and Mortgage rates

Source: OBR, November 2022 Economic and fiscal outlook 

Away from the Autumn Statement, the Secretary of State has restated his commitment to the manifesto pledge of delivering 300,ooo homes a year. Building ‘beautiful’ homes has been retained as a priority, and as a way to achieve local support for house building. Howeverwith less funding and dwindling parliamentary time meeting this target will become increasingly difficult to achieve with the OBR forecasting that net additions to fall from current levels (NB this is for the UK not England).
 
Net additions to the housing stock, UK

Source: OBR, November 2022 Economic and fiscal outlook 

 

Conclusions

The Chancellor’s priorities from the Autumn Statement were clear.
 
Top of the list was to provide stability, and the initial market response suggests the Chancellor has delivered on this. Many of the measures and the gloomy economic forecasts were expected, and the tax rises and spending constraint marks a significant – albeit well trailed – about turn from the ‘boosterism’ of the previous Prime Ministers.
 
In the medium to longer term, the Chancellor has acknowledged that growth will be key, it is encouraging that the Chancellor has maintained that levelling up will be part of this: more devolution deals, and further deepening of devolved funding to Manchester and the West Midlands as pilots. However without any real accompanying incentives of more funding and new infrastructure, the economic and political reality of how this growth conundrum will be achieved remains to be seen.
 
Maintaining and improving public services in a recessionary period will be difficult, and it is with trepidation that we await the funding agreements for local government already tasked with the overwhelming challenges of adult social care. The tight spending plans from 2025 onwards imply annual cuts for some budgets of 0.7% per year; for local government this is on top of a long period of ‘efficiency savings’ and could result in even more over-stretched services.
 
With Government and business investment at a minimum attention within the built environment sector now turns to the Secretary of State to see how planning reforms could contribute to the supply side boost that the economy so clearly needs, but acutely aware there will be less public money available to support it. The need to incentivise and provide a clear pathway for private sector investment has never been greater.
  
  

Disclaimer

This publication has been written in general terms and cannot be relied on to cover specific situations. We recommend that you obtain professional advice before acting or refraining from acting on any of the contents of this publication. Lichfields accepts no duty of care or liability for any loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining from acting as a result of any material in this publication. Lichfields is the trading name of Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners Limited. Registered in England, no.2778116

 
Image credit: Aswin Mahesh
 

CONTINUE READING

I recently presented at the RTPI North East Housing Conference, covering the topic of Planning for an Ageing Population. It was encouraging that there was a lot of discussion and engagement with my presentation. One of my key messages was that there is a need for the industry to engage in the plan making process to ensure that land is allocated for the provision of housing for older people.
Here I referenced research undertaken by Lichfields which shows that, at a national level, very few local authorities included specific allocations in their Local Plan for housing for older people or included a specific requirement for housing for older people. More (around 70%) had a generic policy relating to the housing needs of older people but very few monitored delivery.
It is timely therefore, that this week, the Mayhew Review “Future-proofing retirement living: Easing the care and housing crises” (“the Review”) has been published. This included survey results that “laid the blame for the shortfall [of housing for older people] squarely on the planning system, which drew more criticism than any other issue.”
As a planner, I think the above conclusion is harsh. As the Review itself highlights, the shortfall in retirement developments is a complex issue surrounding “institutional inertia, out-of-date images of retirement living, an emotional attachment to the family home, and a belief that the state will step in.” That said, I absolutely believe the planning system has a crucial role in helping to address the housing needs of older people and could do a lot more.
This blog therefore seeks to summarise the pertinent points of the review and, specifically, how it considers the role of the planning system in helping to address the care and housing crisis.
 

Why is this important?

It is well documented that the UK has an ageing population. People are living longer, and the number of people aged 65 and over is projected to increase faster than any other age cohort in future years, as shown below:
A changing population structure has a range of impacts, both in terms of policy making and fiscal impacts; given that the country’s demographic profile is the foundation upon which public finances are designated and major policy decisions are made.
The importance of this issue is considered in national policy and guidance which recognises:
The need to provide housing for older people is critical... [and] is something to be considered from the early stages of plan-making through to decision-taking.” (Emphasis added) Paragraph: 001 Reference ID: 63-001-20190626 Revision date: 26 June 2019
Clearly, the implications of the ageing population are wide-ranging, well beyond housing. However, the focus of this blog is on housing for older people in the context of the planning system. This is in the knowledge that care and housing are intrinsically linked, as reiterated in the ‘People at the Heart of Care’ White Paper which notably states that every decision about care is also a decision about housing.
 

Key Findings of the Mayhew Review  

The Mayhew Review has found that specialist retirement housing helps older people stay healthier for longer, reduces the burden on the NHS, delays transfer into care homes and frees up housing lower down the ladder. Importantly, policy needs to focus as much on last-time buyers as on first-time buyers.
A key factor driving investment in this sector, supported by pension funds and other investors, is that around 80% of the 65+ population own their home outright and there is potential to redeploy that wealth. However, specialist retirement housing accounts for only 10% of all older households in the UK, meaning there is considerable scope for the sector to expand rapidly. Additionally, although 60% of UK properties have three bedrooms or more, this applies to only about 2.1% of all apartments. This highlights that the type of stock is as much a consideration as the quantity.
The Review highlights that an average of around 7,000 retirement homes are built annually out of a total new-build of around 200,000 and there needs to be an acceleration of building new retirement homes. A scenario whereby 50,000 new retirement units being built a year is considered in the Review. This would imply around 25% of all new homes would be specialist retirement accommodation which is identified as a radical shift from present policy which focuses on first-time buyers.
Importantly, the Review highlights that even 50,000 new units a year would not stem the growth in older households and an even greater rate of building would be necessary, but it would at least ease the care crisis and free up homes.
As touched on above, the situation is identified as being more complicated than simply numbers. Whilst people may want to downsize, they are put off by the lack of suitable alternatives, especially in areas where they live. There is concern around the cost and complexity of moving, security of tenure if they rent and maintenance costs if they buy.
Another problem highlighted is the lack of consistency in planning decisions and the impact of infrastructure levies. It identified that developers can sometimes be skewed towards what is acceptable to a local planning authority rather than best practice in modern retirement living. The Review identifies that split responsibilities within the system is a factor, with housing policy and planning being determined at a district level while social care is a county council function.
Additionally, one specific piece of feedback was that local authorities do not want the extra health and social care costs that can be perceived as the result of additional housing for older people in an area.
Turning to the planning system more specifically, a key issue identified is that retirement living and care homes are seen as one, whereas they are treated differently within the planning system. There is an acknowledgement that retirement developments that combine care homes and retirement living are hard to classify and this can lead to implications on affordable housing contributions and/or Community Infrastructure Levy payments. However, there are no subsidies such as Help to Buy or the affordable housing programme at this end of the market.
Notably, the Review highlights that competition and pressure from standard house builders is crowding out retirement housing. West Oxfordshire District Council was referenced as an example as it formally adopted its Local Plan in 2018, covering a period from 2011 to 2031. However, despite the district having 30% of its population being aged over 65, there was not a single allocation for retirement housing. This reflects the findings of the Lichfields research, referenced earlier in this blog.
 

Recommendations of the Review

The review sets out six recommendations with a seventh overarching recommendation that the Government’s Older People’s Housing Task Force should be mandated to implement recommendations and report on the outcomes. The six recommendations are summarised below:
  • An accelerated programme of up to 50,000 new retirement units a year.
     
  • Expand the number of integrated retirement communities built each year across all regions providing care services, communal facilities, management and staff on site.
     
  • Increase integrated retirement living in town centres as part of the levelling up process and local regeneration programmes.
     
  • Closer working between planning and social care departments to ensure the need for retirement housing with access to care is factored into local authority plans and planning departments put retirement housing on a level playing field with other building developments.
     
  • Further research to be conducted on financial incentives to increase downsizing amongst older households with Stamp Duty for last-time buyers put on an equal footing with first-time buyers.
     
  • Make available financial advice for last-time buyers who want to move into retirement housing, or similar.
With a focus on recommendation d) the Review identifies that housing policy needs to focus as much on retirement housing as it does on first-time buyers and that there is a need for larger retirement developments in urban as well as greenfield sites, including repurposing existing buildings.
The Review sets out a possible solution to include a planning policy presumption in favour of older housing with care, recognising that it is a hybrid form of retirement living. It advises that work needs to be done to educate all local authorities about the advantages of new models of retirement living. It also sets out that authorities need to accept that their planning guidance must include a requirement to address the need for older people’s housing based on more modern models of later-life provision, working closely with health and social care services. However, it falls short of specifically requiring allocating land for housing for older people where supported by evidence.
 

Concluding thoughts

It is encouraging to see housing for older people being considered as part of the national housing agenda and a recognition that the planning system plays a crucial part in helping to deliver the much needed housing for older people. The Review highlights that housing for older people is a complex and multi-faceted sector, needing a joined-up approach and solutions. It therefore feels somewhat unjust that such “blame” is placed on the planning system in regard to the existing shortfall of housing for older people. That said, the planning system is absolutely a crucial part of the solution.
However, with such a weight being placed on problems in the planning system, it feels remiss that more focus is not attributed to the role of the industry in engaging in the plan making process. Such engagement would assist in ensuring that the right sites in the right locations are identified for housing for older people and to ensure that identified housing needs are met. This would help put developers on a more even playing field with other housebuilders; recognising there remains an absolute need to continue to deliver standard housing.
 

CONTINUE READING