Planning matters blog | Lichfields

Planning matters

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

Fire Safety Consultation: What’s behind Gove’s rhetoric?

Fire Safety Consultation: What’s behind Gove’s rhetoric?

Josh Hymer & Jonathan Hoban 08 Aug 2023
The Housing Secretary, Rt Hon Michael Gove MP, announced in his Long-term plan for housing speech on the 24th July 2023, the Government’s intention to mandate second staircases in new residential[1] buildings above 18 metres in height - not the 30 metre height threshold recommendation that had been consulted on.
He did not expressly refer to the Government’s consultation on Approved Document B of the Building Regulations (which ran from 23 December 2022 to 17 March 2023 and we previously discussed here[2]); however, his speech appears to provide the Government’s view on its outcome.
Whilst certainty on the consultation outcome was expected this year, the Mr Gove’s comment is likely to have left some in the industry wrong footed, given that:
 
  1. The Consultation document[3] (paragraph 56) recommended the height threshold should be 30 metres (notwithstanding the National Fire Chiefs Council 18m recommendation at the time[4]) - “30 metres is an accepted threshold for increased safety measures such as increased fire resistance provisions and marks a recognised trigger representing an increase in the level of risks in buildings overall. We therefore propose to introduce a new trigger in Approved Document B making provisions such that new residential buildings more than 30 metres are provided with a second staircase.”
     
  2. On 14 February 2023, the Mayor of London mandated that all residential buildings over 30 metres must have two staircases - “To be clear, our requirement for two staircases applies to residential buildings over 30m in line with the national position”. The Mayor’s 17 March 23 consultation response did qualify that his view on a 18m or 30m threshold was dependent on the publication of findings of any commissioned research[5] which has informed the proposal in the consultation.
     
  3. In our experience, many Local Planning Authorities have been quoting this ‘national position’ when justifying amendments to schemes to accommodate second staircases in residential buildings over 30m tall in their Committee Reports.
 
The Government has not clarified what has brought on this change in position; however, we suspect it is likely to be in response to the joint letter (dated 22 March 2023) from the National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC), Chartered Institute of Buildings (CIOB), Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), Disability Rights UK, Housing LIN, Inclusion London and Leaseholder Disability Action Group to the Secretary of State on this matter (see here), the London Fire Brigade’s 17 March 2023 consultation response (see here) and that the 18m height threshold is already the position in Scotland.
To put this into perspective, 18m building height is broadly equivalent of 6 residential storeys given how height is defined within the current Building Regulations[6].
For any planning proposals above the proposed 18m height threshold, whether at pre-application, planning application stage or approved but not yet implemented, this speech is a very strong indication that these schemes will need to be amended to include a second staircase.
Developers who have already embarked on amending housing schemes to accommodate second staircases in buildings above 30m, are also now likely to face the additional challenge of further scheme amendments for any other residential blocks above the 18m height threshold.
In London, we await confirmation from the Mayor of London on his position – i.e. will the GLA now be taking live referable schemes which include buildings over 18m and only one staircase to Stage 1 or Stage 2 reviews? The most likely scenario is that the Mayor accepts Gove’s speech as the new ‘national position’.
For those planning approved schemes where development has commenced and are under construction, it is encouraging that DLUHC is to work with industry and regulators over the summer to ensure transitional arrangements to secure “the viability of projects which are already underway, avoiding delays where there are other more appropriate mitigations”[7]. However, no further detail is provided on what these appropriate mitigations will entail.
As we have found over the past six months, amending schemes with 30m+ residential buildings to accommodate a second staircase that have already reached a design freeze at Planning stage is challenging, from design, planning and viability perspectives. In practice, we have found that, to accommodate the second staircase, there has typically been a loss of net saleable or lettable floorspace. Usually, this leaves developers with four main options: (1) going taller, (2) going wider (typically by changing inset to protruding balconies), (3) increasing the proportion of smaller homes in the housing mix and/or (4) reopening the overall affordable housing provision and tenure split proposed and thus viability.
For schemes that have been approved but not yet been implemented, there is also a layer of procedural complexity, over whether the proposed changes amount to a non-material or material change and, therefore, whether the changes can be agreed through a s96a or s73 application or whether a fresh planning application is needed. In most cases, we advise engaging with the relevant Local Planning Authority to discuss both the scheme revisions and the procedural route ahead of making any formal application submission.
The steps being taken to improve fire safety are very important and it is comforting that the Government has listened to and responded appropriately to expert advice on this topic. However, the moving of goalposts between different height thresholds is difficult to plan for. There is nonetheless improved clarity now that the threshold will be 18m, providing greater certainty for those working in the industry going forward. The repercussions for those schemes in transitionary arrangements in the planning process will be another challenge to address in the next few months, ahead of the Government’s regulatory confirmation through the approval of the Building Regulations Document B due later this year.
 

[1] ‘Residential’ is not defined within the consultation document albeit para 47 does imply this is aimed at ‘blocks of flats’ (i.e. residential being C3 use). It is therefore unclear if this threshold would apply to sui generis uses such as Purpose Built Student Accommodation or Co-Living or C2 uses such as a Care Home, although logically it is expected to apply to all new ‘homes’.

[2] Jonathan Hoban previously discussed with Planning Resource in January 2023.

[3] Sprinklers in care homes, removal of national classes, and staircases in residential buildings (published 23 December 2022)-

[4] https://www.nationalfirechiefs.org.uk/News/nfcc-calls-for-new-high-rise-residential-buildings-to-have-more-than-one-fire-escape-staircase (14 December 2022)

[5] We understand these have not been published to date.

[6] For guidance on measuring ‘Height’ please refer to Approved Document B of the Building Regulations (2019 edition incorporating 2020 and 2022 amendments)- Appendix A Key Terms, Appendix D Diagram D4 and Appendix D Diagram D6 - i.e. “Height of top storey measured from upper floor surface of top floor to ground level on lowest side of building”.

[7] https://www.michaelgove.com/news/long-term-plan-housing

CONTINUE READING

What can we learn from the past about flood resilience?
Flooding has become one of the biggest dangers to heritage assets in the UK and as more rain is predicted to fall in intense downpours the impacts to the historic environment will be significant. This will undoubtedly have implications for the sustainability of significant heritage assets along with their contribution to local communities and tourism. With the effects of climate change being felt across the country the Government consulted this year on proposals to change England’s planning policies to better respond to flood risks. It was announced planning guidance will be amended to make it clear that all planning applications opposed by the Environment Agency on flood grounds should be referred to the Secretary of State to make the decision. This means that developers who want to build on flood-prone areas will have to demonstrate that their proposals are climate resilient. Owners of listed buildings, who want to make alterations to their properties, should also manage flood risk and establish protective measures while retaining and respecting the existing structure and materials.
In 2018, the Environment Agency identified that flooding posed a significant harmful consequence to cultural heritage. Working with local communities and carrying out a thorough flood risk assessment are therefore important exercises that help developers to understand the potential complexity of delivering their proposals within flood prone areas. Increased protection for heritage assets was spurred by the introduction of The Climate Change Act 2008 and the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 requiring Local Planning Authorities to address flood risk by delegating to them responsibility for flooding from local water courses, with the Environment Agency retaining responsibility for main rivers.
This threat isn’t new however. Historically, our ancestors had a good eye on the landscape locating a number of settlements and structures on topographic highs or by using materials that can tolerate a degree of saturation. Building design from the past includes features such as pitched roofs, which ensure water is shed quickly, preventing it from sitting long enough to penetrate the roof material, whilst wide eaves and cornices keep falling water away from the walls. A study of historic properties at Hebden Bridge in 2017 showed that there were virtually no post-flood problems on buildings that retained most of the historic features and fabric, and the ones that made remedial works such a removing plaster with modern materials experience problems with months of repairs followed by damp issues. The important lesson from the flooding was that the traditionally constructed buildings, maintained and repaired with traditional materials, were far more resilient. Alterations to listed buildings with these components therefore should respect the original function not only for outwardly aesthetic purposes but for their continued use and flood protection elements they offer.
Climate change is not an entirely new issue and our ancestors have been altering the landscape to deal with the effects of flooding since at least the medieval period. Between c. 950–c. 1250 there was the Medieval Warm Period, a time associated with an unusual temperature rise that created unusually wet conditions. The flood defence at Botolph's Bridge, for example, was probably constructed to protect the fertile agricultural land behind it from flood water. Other responses to flooding can also be seen in urbanised environments such as London. Tottenham Court Road for example is a medieval rerouting of the Roman Ermine Street due to its flood prone location.
The modern construction of permanent infrastructure and other tools such as habitat creation, however, can also have negative effects on the historic places. For example, in 2015, the construction of a bund (an embankment to contain flood water) affected the setting of the Grade I listed St Michael’s Church in Mytholmroyd. Unfortunately, despite this defence, the church was inundated during the December floods of 2015. During that flooding event, which was a consequence of the river bursting its banks and increasing groundwater levels, the bund was overtopped, and water rose through the floor of the church. Unfortunately, the bund was very efficient at retaining the flood water in the building, so the church took longer to recover than would have been the case in the absence of that flood defence. Later in 2020, the village experienced further flooding caused by Storm Ciara affecting the church yet again. The church was flooded to a depth of four feet and has been undergoing extensive restoration ever since. All the pews were removed to safe storage and the wooden floor was replaced before the pews were re-installed. The church installed glass panels next to and opposite the church and the river channel has been widened (up to 8m). Rewilding is another example of natural flood management response, such as expanding woodland, reintroducing species that have been absent for a millennia, they usually have an adverse effect on the setting and character of heritage assets.
As demonstrated historic buildings, structures and spaces are vulnerable not only to climate change, but the infrastructure created to protect them. Therefore, consideration should be given to whether its immediate area and whether the dwelling located in a floodplain or an area that is at high risk from flooding. The granting of consent to carry out works to protect a historic structure from flooding will be influenced by the impact of the proposals on the architectural, evidential or historic interest of the site. In some cases, such as Ironbridge, the building and insurance industries’ standard procedures for making buildings habitable again after a flood can be damaging to the special architectural, historic interest. The world heritage site has relied on temporary barriers to protect it during recent devastating floods. Permanent flood alleviation infrastructure has been denied due to its special historical and scientific significance meaning that temporary barriers are a better alternative in order to preserve its special historic and architectural quality. Proposals that affect character and setting are concepts deeply entwined in both planning and heritage protection frameworks. This is important for historic buildings and other features that are located near rivers or on the coast and have close links to the water environment, which will require novel approaches to heritage management. In the past water meadows, for example, have been a feature of many English river valleys and helpfully act as temporary water storage facilities in times of high tide.
Flood defence infrastructure can also contribute to impacts on archaeology through altering ground conditions with potential implications for paleoenvironmental remains. Paleoenvironmental remains are key to understanding past environments and how climate change affected people in the past. Floodplain environments can also illustrate the varied nature of archaeological remains encountered in dynamic coastal and river environments threatened most by the effects of climate change. These remains such as organic deposits, wooden structures and relict channels, tell the story of climate change, flooding and coastal erosion and one that can span hundreds of thousands of years.
The threat of flooding, especially in places which have been on built historic floodplains will continue to become more intense and destructive in the future, and with that many historic places are at risk of flooding as well as coastal change. Heritage professionals are working together to produce effective responses to the impacts of flooding to the historic environment by using lessons from the past to provide holistic approaches to land and building management. Heritage, by default is resilient by the fact it has survived, and we must support the local communities within these rich historic landscapes to adapt to our ever-changing environment.

CONTINUE READING