Planning matters blog | Lichfields

Planning matters

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

Optimising Housing Delivery and London’s MOL

Optimising Housing Delivery and London’s MOL

Steven Butterworth 01 Jul 2019
Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) is a strategic planning designation, introduced by the 1976 Greater London Development Plan. Its purpose is to protect open land of significance for London as a whole, providing useful and attractive breaks in the built-up area (GLDP para 9.8). It is a different planning concept to the Green Belt (GB) but one afforded the same status and level of policy protection. Almost one third of London is designated as either MOL or GB[1]. Yet, in preparing the New London Plan (NLP), the Mayor of London has not reviewed London’s MOL or GB boundaries, nor is there any material change to his policies dealing with ‘inappropriate development’ proposed with the MOL or GB. Understandably, therefore, the extent to which London has capacity to meet its identified housing and other development needs within its own boundaries, outside the MOL and GB, was a big issue at the recent NLP Examination. There are relatively few major housing appeals in London where this tension is played out. The review of the factors that the Secretary of State or his Inspectors have found to collectively amount to Very Special Circumstances (VSC) to clearly outweigh the adjudged harm to the GB or MOL since the July 2018 NPPF, undertaken by Planning Resource on 13 March 2019, identified just one London MOL case and that related to the QPR Football Club training centre in LB Ealing. In the above context, the decision on 26 June to grant planning permission on appeal for 151 homes on a MOL site adjacent to Lower Sydenham station in LB Bromley – a scheme the Inspector found to be fundamentally different to the 253 homes scheme dismissed on the same site in 2016 – is of considerable interest. Dylon 2 Appeal Site Lichfields annotated Bromley Local Plan and Lewisham Core Strategy Proposals Maps Source: Aerial Photograph 2018 © Relta Ltd The 1.86ha triangular shaped appeal site (edged red above), to which there is no public access, lies on the edge of the New Beckenham MOL. The western edge of the site, next to the London to Hayes railway line and industrial estate beyond, contains small scale pavilion buildings and compounds for storage and vehicle parking. A track enclosing a grassed area, once a private sports pitch associated with the former industrial use of the adjoining site, lie on the eastern side of the site adjacent to the densely vegetated riverbank and large private playing fields beyond. Immediately to the north of the site lies Crest Nicholson’s Dylon 1 development (site edged orange), comprising 223 homes in 5 to 8 storey buildings, and Bellway’s 159 homes under construction in 5 to 9 storey buildings on the Maybrey Works site (site edged yellow). Planning Considerations The sustainable nature of the site next to  railway station providing good links to central London mainline stations was not contested. Four of the five main issues identified by the Appeal Inspector, Mr George Baird, are pertinent to the tension between optimising housing delivery and MOL policy.On the first issue, whether the Council could demonstrate a 5YHLS, Mr Baird found that all the recently adopted Local Plan allocations and all contested outline planning permissions to be undeliverable, as what LBB provided in its evidence and under cross examination came “…nowhere close to the clear evidence [required by the definition of ‘deliverable’ in the revised NPPF] to demonstrate that there is a realistic prospect that housing completions will begin on site within the relevant 5-year period” (Appeal decision, paras 9 & 18). These elements alone reduce Bromley’s supply from the claimed 5.6-years to 4.25-years, this being “…materially below a level of undersupply that the lpa acknowledge is significant” (para 18). On the second, the effect of the Dylon 2 scheme on the openness of the MOL, he found that: Spatially, the replacement of the previously developed land on 38% of the site with two (4 to 5 and 5 to 8 storey) buildings amounted to no greater building coverage and as such would have no greater impact on openness (para 20); and Visually, whilst the proposed buildings “would have a material impact on openness, that impact would be mitigated by the level of existing screening, its setting below the skyline and the gap between the two new buildings” (para 21). Dylon 2 Landscape Plan, © Ian Ritchie Architects Aerial Visualisation of Dylon 2 Scheme, © Ian Ritchie Architects On (3), the effect of Dylon 2 on the character and appearance of the area, Mr Baird considered: the buildings proposed are not ‘tall buildings’, as the two blocks of varying height would not exceed the heights of the buildings in the adjacent Dylon 1 and Maybrey Works developments, nor result in a significant change to the skyline (para 24); and “This staggering of height combined with the separation of the buildings, the finesse of the design and detailing…combine to create a development of exceptional architectural placemaking quality that has a lightness of touch and appearance. The setting of the development along the western edge of the site, the extent of the landscaped and publicly accessible park to the east and south combined with the lighter scale and mass of the development combine to create a development that relates sympathetically to the site and MOL’’ (para 26). Finally, the Inspector found there to be ‘other considerations’ which, collectively, clearly outweigh the substantial weight attached to the harm found due to the extent of the residential development proposed (by definition ‘inappropriate development’) and the harm adjudged to MOL openness, such that VSC exist to justify the Dylon 2 development (paras 35 – 38). Mr Baird attached very substantial weight to the contribution made to the provision of housing and, in particular, the pressing need for affordable housing. He noted only 65 net affordable homes were completed in Bromley between 2012 & 2017, the borough’s affordability ratio is 14.26 and the only 28% of the 1,424 affordable homes needed per year is forecast within the 5YHLS (para 33). The Inspector concluded that the future position for general and affordable housing in Bromley looks bleak and Bromley’s housing requirement is “…going to increase materially” in the NLP (para 35). He also attached very significant weight to the environmental and recreational benefits arising from the creation of a new public park, significant weight to the architectural and townscape quality of the scheme (commending the Appellant’s engagement of an architect and practice of national and international repute) and moderate weight to the economic, locational regeneration benefits of the scheme (paras 36-37). Commentary I consider this housing appeal success provides a useful London MOL example of the factors required to demonstrate that VSC exist. Whilst, every development proposed within the MOL or GB must be considered on its own merits, there are a number of factors in this case which I expect to have increasing resonance in London once the NLP is published in early 2020.These include (not an exhaustive list): Housing Need & Shortfall: If the London housing capacity-based target increases to anywhere close to the 65,000 dpa identified in the draft NLP ( as is expected), there are likely to be a number of (mainly outer) London boroughs which will be unable to demonstrate either a 5YHLS or a plan on how to address the shortfall against the increased requirement. Affordable Housing Need & Delivery: The extent of affordable housing completions, the likely supply against the need and local (un)affordability, and the contribution a proposal makes to both. Site Location: The extent to which sites lying on the inside edge of MOL are located close to transport hubs or in other locations with good public transport accessibility and are sustainable and suitable locations for housing. MOL site specifics, such as: how much is ‘previously developed land’ and how does the proposed development compare to the existing development footprint? can a MOL site be seen, from where and what is the sensitivity, and what is the visual effect of that change in volume on openness? how does a site relate (or not) to adjoining MOL? can public access and recreation and environmental benefits to the MOL be secured? Scheme Design: High quality place-making, landscape design and building architecture, responsive to an (often) transitional urban context, is required, such that a design by a creative architect can be highly influential. Overall, the pressure to review how GB or MOL sites (like Dylon 2) perform against the designation criteria is likely to increase. This can and ought to be addressed whenever an LPA undertakes a comprehensive review of its GB and MOL boundaries as part of its local plan evidence base, but far too few such reviews are undertaken by LPAs in London. Unless there are more individual borough reviews, or a comprehensive review of all GB/MOL land across London, perhaps conducted by a Single Joint Expert (as the Appellant’s team have promoted at the NLP Examination), then one can expect more housing within the MOL/GB to emerge throughout the lifetime of the NLP.   [1] Source: Greenspace Information for Greater London CIC, Mapping London’s Green Belt and MOL, September 2018: https://www.gigl.org.uk/mapping-londons-green-belt-and-mol/ Lichfields provided MOL, Housing and VSC (including Socio-Economic) Evidence to the Dylon 2 Inquiry, on behalf of Relta Ltd and Dylon 2 Ltd, the Appellant. Other Evidence was provided by West & Partners, Montagu Evans, Tetlow King, Ian Ritchie Architects and Mr P Finch. The team was led by Christopher Young QC and Leanne Buckley-Thomson of No5 Chambers.   

CONTINUE READING

The Revised Draft GMSF – politics over powerhouse?

The Revised Draft GMSF – politics over powerhouse?

Colin Robinson & Imogen Zulver 15 Jan 2019
After a two-year delay since the first draft version of the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (GMSF) was published in October 2016, the revised draft was finally issued on Monday 7th January. This follows a mayoral manifesto pledge in 2017 for a ‘radical rewrite’ with ‘no net Green Belt losses’. This has ultimately been impossible to achieve, but nevertheless, important changes have been made to the development targets for both housing and employment land and where they will go. The revised draft was approved for consultation under Regulation 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations (2012) at the Greater Manchester Combined Authority’s (GMCA’s) meeting on Friday 11th January. The consultation is now open and will close on the 18th March 2019, with final consultation earmarked for September 2019 and adoption of the plan in December 2020. The previous version of the document attracted 27,000 responses with the main concerns relating to Green Belt release for housing and employment, low density employment sites/low value warehousing and the infrastructure implications for new development. This will be the first Spatial Development Strategy (SDS) outside of London. According to the GMCA, current legislation does not allow for an SDS of the type that the GMCA requires. Whilst the revised draft continues as a Development Plan Document, the GMCA want to convert it to an SDS which would not require the unanimous approval of all of the Councils, just the GMCA, and a whole host of issues will need to be examined closely in the weeks ahead to determine whether (as an SDS) the GMSF would be (1) subject to the tests of soundness, (2) able to allocate sites for development, and (3) able to amend Green Belt boundaries. Strong views either way have so far been expressed by the development industry. The objective of the revised draft GMSF is to plan for homes, jobs, infrastructure and the environment in the ten combined authority areas of Bolton, Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Stockport, Tameside, Trafford and Wigan. The document claims to have overcome the main concerns with the 2016 draft and sets out its plans to: Deliver a stronger emphasis on the role of brownfield land and town centres; Reduce in the net loss of Green Belt; and, Provide stronger protection of importance green spaces. The question remains, to what extent has the detail been driven by political influences and a desire to protect Green Belt at all costs? Our view is that the GMSF suppresses development rather than actually providing the appropriate level of development needed in the most suitable areas to fulfil Manchester’s role as the engine of the Northern Powerhouse. Two years ago, we raised concerns that the 2016 GMSF was pursuing conservative levels of housing, with employment growth levels well below what many other cities were achieving elsewhere in the UK. We were concerned that without a radically re-booted, pro-development GMSF, Greater Manchester would be unable to sustain the Northern Powerhouse, nor act as a healthy counterweight to London and the Greater South East. However, the latest version of the GMSF scales back the level of housing and economic development even further, making it even less likely that Greater Manchester can achieve its potential. The Plan’s main emphasis is instead on delivering new development as part of a “brownfield-first” approach through higher density developments. The 50% reduction in site allocations within the Green Belt has (rightly) grabbed many of the headlines with the overall proposed net loss of Green Belt comprising 4.1% of Greater Manchester’s total Green Belt area (-2,049 ha), compared to 8.2% previously. Housing In terms of housing, the revised draft GMSF sets a target of 200,980 new homes to be delivered in Greater Manchester 2018-2037 (or 10,578 dwellings per annum (dpa)). This annual target has reduced by 7% since the 2016 draft, which required the delivery of 227,200 new homes over a 20-year period (11,360 dpa).   Figure 1: See larger version The map at Figure 1 shows the housing targets for both the 2016 draft and the revised 2018 draft GMSF against past delivery rates [1]. Whilst it is a positive that the GMCA is planning for an increase in recent levels of housing delivery, the proposed delivery rate would still be well below the delivery rate of almost 15,000 houses achieved just before the financial crisis in 2007/08 (almost 30% lower, in fact). In terms of the methodology used in the revised draft GMSF to calculate this target, the GMCA follows the revised standard method proposed by the Government in its recent consultation on calculating ‘local housing need’, i.e. to use the 2014-based household projections with an affordability uplift. This derives a figure of around 10,500 across Greater Manchester. However, the GMCA has not distributed this need across the districts as per the standard method, but has instead redistributed the housing allocations based on policy objectives. The GMSF states that promoting higher levels of housing growth in central and northern districts will achieve a more balanced and sustainable pattern of growth, support local economies and reflect the availability of suitable sites. This is shown in Figure 2 which compares the revised draft 2019 GMSF local housing targets for each borough against the local housing need (LHN) calculated using the revised standard method. As it stands, the approach appears to be flawed.  Figure 2: See larger version Figure 2 shows there are clear disparities between the LHN and the revised GMSF targets in most areas, in particular Stockport (1,078 LHN, compared to the 764 dpa GMSF target). Bolton and Tameside, two of the most deprived districts in Greater Manchester, both have reduced housing targets, despite the draft GMSF policy claiming that housing growth has been used as a tool to boost prosperity and reduce inequalities. Furthermore, the proposed distribution has no regard to the different housing market areas across Greater Manchester, and assumes that someone may be just as happy to settle in Wigan as they would be in Stockport. Moreover, the Planning Practice Guidance sets out that the standard method should be the minimum starting point for calculating LHN. The standard method has no regard to changing economic circumstances or future demographic behaviour which could have an impact on the LHN. It appears that the GMCA has used this starting point to identify their targets but have made no attempt to justify the lack of uplift, which could help to meet affordable housing needs or, critically, properly align with economic growth aspirations. The picture is even bleaker for those looking to get on the housing market any time soon. The revised draft GMSF has adopted a phased approach to delivering housing across the ten authorities. In other words, the GMCA proposes to backload delivery by lowering targets over the first 5 years and accelerate delivery in later years. The GMCA claims that there is a need to build up to a higher future delivery rate in order to obtain Government funding as well as the required masterplanning and infrastructure investments required to support development on the sites, including many of the allocations in the GMSF. Figure 3 Looking at the graph in Figure 3 we can see that this has had a particularly significant effect on Bolton, Bury, Oldham, Stockport and Trafford. Looking specifically at Bolton, the GMSF provides no housing allocations in the Borough and therefore the justification behind a phased approach here is unclear.  This suppression could assist in creating the illusion that these Greater Manchester authorities are demonstrating a five-year housing land supply, when in fact, they are knowingly underdelivering. Overall, the GMSF singularly fails to take affordability issues into account. The GMSF notes that if insufficient new homes are provided to meet increasing demand, then there is a risk that affordability levels will worsen and people will not have access to suitable accommodation that meets their needs (para 7.4). It is hard to disagree with this. However, the GMSF ignores the point by cutting the housing targets in the two districts with by far the highest affordability ratios in Greater Manchester, Stockport and Trafford, with the latter currently experiencing house prices some 8.9 times higher than earnings. By restricting housing growth in these areas and planning for more homes in more deprived areas, it risks intensifying the gap between supply and demand, contributing to continued house price increases. The revised draft GMSF also proposes a new policy (GM-H 4 Density of New Housing) which sets out minimum density requirements for new housing in Greater Manchester. These minimum density requirements are central to achieving the delivery of sites within existing brownfield sites within the urban area. However, the revised draft GMSF has little regard to site specific constraints such as flood risk, topography, ecology etc. which can reduce the net developable area of a site; nor does it have regard to the financial viability of delivering these (often complex) brownfield sites. This is another area in which the revised draft GMSF does not take into account different housing markets. The policy risks placing too much emphasis on delivering high density apartments within urban centres. It does not take into account that many families want to live in larger suburban family homes with private outdoor amenity space. England is in the middle of a housing crisis with an ever-increasing need for more family homes. The GMSF therefore needs to plan for a range of family homes in a number of locations across the combined authorities. There is also a strong, unmet demand for affordable housing across England. Policy GM-H 2 (Affordability of New Housing) sets out the GMCA’s aim to deliver at least 50,000 new affordable homes over the plan period (2018-2037) which equates to 25% of the total 200,000 homes to be delivered (2,632 annually). Greater Manchester is currently delivering an average of 1,211 affordable homes each year which is around half of the affordable housing required by the revised draft GMSF. To meet the affordable housing target, 25% of all dwellings would need to be delivered as affordable housing. This will be very challenging and, again, does not take into account viability considerations. Employment In terms of employment land, the revised draft GMSF sets out a target of 4,220,000 sqm of industrial and warehousing floorspace to be delivered in Greater Manchester over the plan period (or 222,105 sqm each year). The GMCA has trended forward past take up rates of B1c/B2 and B8 land and uplifted the resultant annual average by 25%. The revised draft GMSF claims to make provision for an industrial and warehousing supply (5,358,041 sqm) considerably higher than the overall ‘need’ to reflect the need to compete internationally for investment and provide sufficient choice and flexibility. However, compared to the 2016 draft GMSF, there has been a substantial reduction in the gap between the target and the projected supply. The total supply for Greater Manchester set out in 2016 draft GMSF exceeded the target figure by 103%[2], whereas the total supply set out in the revised 2018 draft GMSF only exceeds the target figure by 27%. It is evident that the GMCA are providing more industrial and warehousing floorspace than their ‘need’ which is positive; we agree that many of these potential allocations, particularly in the north, are suitable and deliverable however the level of supply has decreased substantially. However we think more industrial/warehousing allocations need to come forward to enhance competitiveness and flexibility in the supply. Conclusion In summary, it is a relief that the revised draft GMSF has finally been published and it is evident that the GMCA is working hard towards adopting a Plan that grapples with the issue of the Green Belt release. However in reality, more sites, both housing and industrial/warehousing, need to come forward in areas of greatest need.  The GMCA cannot afford to supress the housing delivery that is essential to sustain Greater Manchester’s economic growth. [1] 8,961 net housing completions in Greater Manchester in 2017/18.  [2] The 2016 draft GMSF made a provision of 8,126,000 sq m of industrial and warehousing supply with a target to deliver 4,000,000 sq m across the plan period.

CONTINUE READING