Planning matters

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

The only way is up?

The only way is up?

Stephen Morgan-Hyland 03 Jul 2018
An e-mail confirming Lichfields’ Northern Powerhouse Partner status dropped in to my inbox as I stood surveying the Manchester manor from 2o storeys up; from the delightfully named 20Stories restaurant at No1 Spinningfields. When I moved to Manchester two decades ago, only four buildings in the city topped 20 storeys and you certainly couldn’t enjoy gourmet food with a panoramic view and a raspberry martini; or enjoy living in any of them. I did once take some chips to rooftop of Portland Tower, the building where I plied my planning trade back then, but that was a glamorous as high-rise Manchester got pre-2000. Back to the future, and I stand watching the construction lifts scuttling like children’s toys up and down the façades of Renaker Build/SimpsonHaugh & Partners’ Deansgate Square Towers – the 67th floor of the tallest of four towers will top 200 metres and be the fifth tallest building in the UK – and wonder whether, for the largest city and metropolitan area in the Northern Powerhouse, the only way is indeed up? The Northern Powerhouse is characterised by cities with commonality in land use planning issues, and whilst the focus of this piece is the North West, my 20Stories view affords an outlook of the Pennines and I am acutely aware that beyond those hills the same issues are in play; and the same over t’other way too, in Liverpool. The smart money in the North West is on up, and out; across Greater Manchester. Local election results, amongst other things, have forced back – to ‘later this Summer’ - a consultation on the rewritten Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (GMSF); now the ‘baby’ of Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham. The confidence and supply support from Trafford Liberal Democrats to Labour in a minority administration alliance is dependent upon a brownfield first approach to new housing, and seemingly removes from the GMSF the Flixton Station and Timperley Wedge sites put forward for Green Belt release. The two sites might have provided over 4,000 new homes and represent 6% of the residential development potential from Green Belt release sites (some 65,000 homes) across Greater Manchester. It remains to be seen how the rewritten GMSF proposes to redress the short-fall. Trafford’s reticence to embrace its housing shortage may well result in opportunities for additional sites elsewhere, across the combined authority area, but there is clearly a need for significant additional high-density, high-rise urban development and that will be driven by Manchester and Salford-focussed demand.  Lichfields knows that market well, leading the planning process on several 30+ storey towers. There is plenty here about Lichfields’ housing and expertise and insight. One certainty is that Andy Burnham will want the GMSF and a housing strategy for Greater Manchester sorted well in advance of the next Mayoral election in 2020. Back at a 20th storey terrace lunch table – I was at 20Stories as a client celebration on completion of an important regeneration project – I dropped into the conversation the spatial framework; not the Burnham ‘baby’ but the City of Manchester Plan of 1945. Those who know me will recognise that I am a bastion of topical conversation. Chapter 12 Housing Standards starts with quote from once Bishop of Manchester William Temple ‘We need more space, above all more space for and in the homes of people…’; nothing changes. The 1945 Plan includes page-upon-page of guidance on appropriate residential densities, standards for internal living and principles for outdoor amenity space. I read it recently, and I bring to this into the discussion.  Stick with me my lunch guests did.   The 1945 Plan’s relevance to modern day society and policy aspirations, through its references to ensuring that the delivery of residential development is ‘…compatible with a sense of well-being’, achieves a ‘softening…of stark lines’ and contributes to ‘enlivening…arid monotony’ is palpable. It goes on to say that ‘…means must be found to bring back living greenery into our inner residential districts’. Whilst the Manchester Plan was seeking a move away from bare, drab too-closely-built Victorian streets the reference to well-being is as applicable now as it was then. Millennials (born early 80s to mid-90s), often dubbed Generation Rent, are occupying a significant proportion of new-build city apartments across UK towns and cities; Manchester and Salford are no exception. In the past, Baby Boomers who moved ‘out’ to new-build peripheral housing estates often cited isolation and loneliness given an absence of ‘community’ and facilities; a sense of being a long way out from their traditional inner-city residential areas. As we increasingly embrace building up as well as out, and land availability constraints will demand this, land use planning needs to be increasingly minded of those living a long way up. Residential tower blocks have always carried the risk of social isolation, all too often a social failing of our elderly citizens. Such discussions about loneliness typically focus on the elderly, but a recent Study by the Office for National Statistics found that young people (aged 16-24) identified with a feeling being lonely more often than is the case with any other adult age group. If Millennials and those who follow (so called Generation Z) are to populate and make communities out of our high-rise cities then the Northern Powerhouse needs to reflect on the foresight of 1945 to ‘…bring back living greenery into our inner residential districts’. It is not the greenery per se that might guard against that threat of loneliness, rather the opportunity carried by open space for social interaction. Moreover, making something of that potential is down to those potential users; the Fortnite versus real world conundrum. Don’t think either that I’m questioning high-rise, high-quality being delivered in our new vertical cities; that is top drawer. It’s the spaces in between that is of fundamental importance to creating liveable and sustainable environments. Perhaps Yazz –known well by my Generation X cohort – was prophesising about 21st century living when she sang– But if we should be evicted, Huh, from our homes, We'll just move somewhere else, And still carry on – in the 1988 hit The Only Way is Up.   Generation Rent might be residentially peripatetic and upwardly bound, but that footloose sense captured by Yazz will only meet with success if our urban environments delivery a sense of well-being and belonging. Ultimately the Northern Powerhouse, and its success, is all about, and dependent upon, the people of the North. That is, utilising their economic might to drive forward the new Northern agenda. We can only do this if land use planning creates the right foundations for society, and looking after the social well-being of Northern Powerhouse citizens is paramount as our cities grow up as well as grow out.

CONTINUE READING

Will brownfield land registers solve Greater Manchester’s housing crisis?
It is well-known that Greater Manchester is not immune from the national housing crisis. Going forward, the first draft Greater Manchester Spatial Framework’s (GMSF) housing target is still considered too low by many observers (including ourselves). However, at least it has confronted the issue of Green Belt release. Greater Manchester’s Mayor Andy Burnham campaigned on, and has delivered on this matter through his review of the draft Framework, and it will be covered in the much anticipated, upcoming 2nd draft of the GMSF. Whether this represents the promised “radically changed” approach to make more use of the city region’s brownfield sites, and reduce the impact on the Green Belt, we will have to wait to see. New rules in force since last April mean that all local planning authorities (LPAs) had to publish a brownfield land register before 31 December 2017. Nationally, Lichfields’ analysis shows that only approximately half of English local planning authorities have published their brownfield land registers (BLR); the registers tend to simply include sites identified in strategic housing land availability assessments/ allocated housing land. This is possibly related to, and symptomatic of, the slow delivery of local plans, with patchy coverage at best nationally and a similar development planning pattern across Greater Manchester too. As part of Lichfield’s analysis highlighted in this blog, we focus on the Mayor’s stated aim of tackling the city region’s ever-growing housing crisis with the re-use of brownfield sites. How will the GMSF make better use of brownfield land, and how realistic is this policy approach? Publication of the region’s registers in December 2017 provides some insight on this issue. To be fair, all 10 Greater Manchester authorities have published their registers, reflecting their wider regeneration aspirations and the drive to maximise the re-use of brownfield land for housing-led development. In total 1,314 PDL sites have been identified across Greater Manchester which collectively have the capacity to deliver around 100,100 new homes over the next 15 years. How many of these are deliverable without significant public sector investment will be interesting to see. It is by any measure a significant number, but it only helps to crystallise the case for retaining the Green Belt around Greater Manchester or not; the number of homes on BLR sites equates to only around 44% of the draft GMSF housing target of 227,200 new homes up to 2035. Many within the industry considered this aspiration to be too low already, identifying how it failed to serve aspirations for economic growth and the Northern Powerhouse agenda. Irrespective of this, we all have to grapple with where the other 127,100 or more homes will be built. It is also fair to say there is a mixed picture across Greater Manchester in terms of distribution of brownfield land. Figure 1 below compares the quantity of brownfield land to the previous draft GMSF requirement. Only Manchester, Salford and Bolton can deliver over half of their target. Six local authorities (Bury, Oldham, Rochdale, Stockport, Tameside and Trafford) can only deliver less than 30% of their requirement. Figure 1: Brownfield land register proposed dwellings compared to the previous draft GMSF’s requirements   Source: GMSF, MHCLG The capacity gap in Trafford (86%) and Stockport (88%) is very substantial to say the least. So what does this mean for the future spatial strategy, and what are the consequences? How are Trafford’s and Stockport’s (and others’) needs to be met, without further increasing the affordability gap and the pressure on house prices. The previous draft GMSF identified a series of greenfield sites - predominately from the Green Belt - that would be required to meet need, contributing some 63,850 dwellings overall. Since it was formally adopted in 1984, the Greater Manchester Green Belt boundary has largely remained unaltered and it is a highly controversial topic - hence the Mayor’s review of the first draft GMSF. However, even if one adds all of the potential GMSF allocations to the BLR sites, the total falls a long way short of housing targets. Taking Greater Manchester as a whole, BLR sites and potential GMSF allocations will only deliver 72% of the city region’s housing requirement overall. Again the picture is highly variable, with Bolton and Bury close to achieving their requirement, but others, including Trafford and Tameside, having significant shortfalls. Figure 2: Total GMSF allocation & proposed brownfield land register units compared to the previous draft GMSF requirement Source: GMSF, MHCLG Furthermore, when considering the identified allocations, the GMSF has focused primarily on a few very large sites coming forward to meet the shortfall in supply. This results in inevitable pressure on infrastructure in key communities. We will have to wait and see how the 2nd draft GMSF responds to these issues, but it may for example include a broader range of sites, of different sizes and locations in order to de-risk the delivery issues and problems associated with not achieving the housing requirement. Brownfield land is one step towards meeting the requirement, and key questions will remain around delivery, and how long term requirements are to be met.   However, as demonstrated in Figure 3, there remains a shortfall of 63,245 homes to meet even the first draft GMSF housing target.  Regardless, the 227,000 GMSF requirement still remains well below the level of housing necessary to address housing pressure and the under-delivery that the city region has experienced over the years, even before considering the long-term economic growth needs of the conurbation at the heart of the Northern Powerhouse. Figure 3: Identified housing shortfall Source: GMSF, MHCLG Conclusion Whilst there is much to be welcomed in the Greater Manchester local authorities publishing their BLRs before the deadline, it seems that the re-use of brownfield land for housing can only be part of the solution. Even if every one of these sites were to come forward as intended, the local authorities still need to identify land for more than 127,100 homes just to meet the GMSFs conservative targets. If less land is to be removed from the Green Belt, there remains significantly more deliverable sites that will have to be found to meet need. This is even before a debate as to whether a target of 227,200 is suitably ambitious for a great conurbation such as Manchester, that should be driving the economy of the North in the Northern Powerhouse agenda.   Image credit: A.P.S. (UK) / Alamy Stock Photo  

CONTINUE READING