Planning in London

OPINION from PiL 38 A holy alliance Private provision of affordable housing Nothing adds up in affordable housing. The gap between supply and demand widens making all housing less 'affordable'. Planning policies are perverted to make developers pay a 'levy' towards the provision of 'affordable' homes. A few successes such as Imperial Wharf near Chelsea Harbour have rendered the extortion system blind to its deterrent effect, the loss of potential homes and the increase in prices of those provided. Subsidising the bricks and mortar rather than the families in need of support is misguided; building a policy on the back of under-paying 'key workers' so they depend on housing subsidy is wrong. Key workers should be paid enough and subsidised if necessary to buy into the market. This is all bound to end in tears and needs a brave new look. And here is a place to start. The legislation setting-up registered social landlords (RSLs) allows for these to be for-profit development companies. Some do exist, but why are there not lots more out there building affordable homes for profit? Well, there are a few, but the incentives need sharpening up if they are to expand supply in a significant way. And let's not forget that the circular allows that 'affordable' homes include affordable market housing and key worker housing (both of which are included in Imperial Wharf, by the way) and which planning authorities using the current regime must entertain as contributing to social housing provision. For-profit RSLs would then be able to inject additional capital and compete with other uses for sites, take on the social component of other developers' mixed-use schemes and be enticed to expand investment in housing provision in London for the benefit of the market as a whole and all groups in need of housing.

A beltway for charging around London

The old timers always claim that orbital transport routes don't work people want to ride the radials, they say. The usefulness of the Circle Line (on a good day) seems to suggest that this is not always so. The Mayor.s first aspirational go at his strategic development plan for London buys Peter Hall's 'Orbirail' link-up of lines encircling London, so maybe time has come for more non-radial thinking. Part of the case for Orbirail is the demand for relatively random and localised movements around the suburban belt and its local centres, which has led to a more intractable congestion problem than is generally the case in the central area. In fact London's central congested area is not congested by major city standards just try Milan, Madrid or Bangkok! And if traffic management and parking provision were to be focused on enhancing traffic flow and capacity as it is in Singapore and will have to be if the mayor's present charging area is adopted, it would get even better for motorists. But it seems to make no sense other than as a cash-raising venture. A charging cordon should be evaluated which catches vehicles which enter London from the north and south circular roads. This would allow residents who move orbitally on either side of the cordon to be unaffected, but would deter drivers leaving inner London, since they would have to return through the cordon, and others from entering by car. A model worth testing and which would generate revenues for public transport and congestion improvements nearer to where they are needed. Ken's charging zone will end up out there eventually in any case.

OPINION from PiL 37

A holy alliance

Speaking to an international real estate crowd last month on the London stand at MiPiM the annual property fair in Cannes Judith Mayhew promised that we could look forward to "a cluster of new office towers' in the City. The call-in of Foster's 'gherkin' for Swiss Re was, she implied, no more than an unfortunate delay; KPF's Heron tower likewise. 'The City will deliver the floorspace demanded for it to remain Europe's financial centre and retain its World City status', she said. That the Mayor has proclaimed his enthusiastic support for tall buildings not just for the City but for Westminster and Southwark too suggests something of an unholy alliance. But the Mayor and the City share a bigger vision for London's international role, and they understand the importance of providing more top quality floorspace in landmark buildings. The continuing high demand, the lack of speculative development and the strong flows of inward investment all indicate that a number of these ambitious towers will be built provided that they are not frustrated by the planning system. They have to be done very well, they need to be in the right places and the supporting infrastructure transport especially has to be put in place as they are built. But lack of infrastructure investment is not an excuse for a planning refusal, rather such developments should be used as the spur to bring forward essential investment. No doubt the debate over Renzo Piano's tower at London bridge, which is supported (with qualifications) by CABE, Southwark and the GLA, will provide further focus for this debate. It should be constructive, not acrimonious.

Roads for the rich

The leaders of Westminster City Council are putting up a high profile fight against the Mayor's congestion charging proposals. The small charging zone proposed is largely in their patch so they are entitled to make their position known and felt. But is their's a constructive position? And are they likely to succeed in their opposition? Councillor Howe, chairman of their transportation committee, argues that charging is premature if introduced ahead of the provision of improvements to public transport: 'Without offering motorists a choice of alternatives, charging becomes merely a form of tax collection,' she says with reason. But she fails to identify what should be put in place before she considers the introduction of charging to be acceptable. Rather she implies that it needs to be put off until there is new Underground capacity and other long-term investment and consequent improvements. That is to say, indefinitely! This will not persuade the Mayor to compromise. A more moderate and constructive position is more likely to succeed. Charging drivers £1,300 p.a. to do what they do now without at least first introducing a choice of shared taxi systems, new minibus routes and additional parking provision outside the charging cordon does seem unreasonable. These can all be reasonably quickly implemented. Councillor Howe also raises valid questions about the boundary line. Like many she would like to see it drawn over a larger area and concessions made to people living just on the wrong side of the line and to tradesmen who have to deliver or work within the charging zone. These are issues which the Mayor has yet to address convincingly.

opinion
The bananas republic of Hackney (PiL 51 leader)

If a building is structurally sound, meets the building and fire regulations, and appears suitable to the user for the purpose he wishes to use it for, and the use causes no annoyance to neighbours, what right does the local council have to dictate how someone who has paid to do so should use that property? This is the civil rights issue at the heart of the live-work debate.

The right of the individual to exercise property rights without unnecessary bureaucratic interference. But Hackney Council, for example, thinks so-called 'live-work' properties are just a ruse to provide valuable residential space and has withdrawn its SPG on live-work. This is the borough which resisted strenuously the regeneration of Shoreditch throughout the 1980s and early 1990s by refusing to grant consents for lofts in old warehouses a phenomenon which has demonstrably transformed a derelict bit of Hackney into a thriving inner city location.

It then in desperation tried to regularise things by trying out live-work consents one early consent stipulating 'no children under 16 shall live in this apartment', or words to that effect. Scary. Hackney of course now tries hypocritically to claim some credit for regeneration, while other observers criticise Shoreditch and Hoxton's self-regeneration as exclusive of local people and socially divisive.

Well it probably is, and that's because while the private sector was prepared to risk its capital, while Hackney resisted, and is still resisting. an economic tide which its long-suffering residents could benefit from. We don't need another use-class specifically to cover live-work. We should remove the need to obtain planning consent to convert a building from employment use to residential. London is screaming out for more housing, yet Canutes in planning departments all over London resist this with every fibre of their professional beings to the point where you begin to think it's just a control thing.

This was the story of the whole loft movement in London. Planners saying 'no' while residential prices rocketed and supply dwindled. There is no reason why suitably designed or refurbished buildings cannot be used for either office/studio or residential purposes, or both together, provided they meet the regs.

So just forget about live-work and let people get on with making London more prosperous. Instead of trying to preserve employment uses for political ends (which is the root of many boroughs' employment zoning policies gerrymandering by another name) why not spend the extra tax generated by more valuable residential uses on improving education?

Or stopping street crime? Or do you want to carry on uselessly controlling property uses in a degenerating banana republic? When we have enough houses in London, prices will fall. As employment space is converted to residential, the value of employment space will rise. When a balance is reached, London will be better able to grow and its citizens will benefit. Londoners at both ends of the social spectrum are suffering right now because planners wear political blinkers.