Planning in London

LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM
LatestMinutes
FOR PREVIOUS MINUTES CLICK HERE

MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON WEDNESDAY WEDNESDAY 7 TH DECEMBER 2005 AT BRITISH PROPERTY FEDERATION 7TH FLOOR, 1 WARWICK ROW LONDON SW1E 5ER BETWEEN 2.30 AND 5.30 (download as pdf)

Attendance: Brian Waters: Chairman Alastair Gaskin: Urban Catalyst Andrew Rogers: Association of Consultant Architects David Ubaka: Transport for London Esther Kurland: CABE Faraz Baber: British Property Federation Gideon Amos: TCPA Giles Dolphin: GLA Joanne Fox: Planning Aid for London Judith Ryser Isocarp/UGb/Cityscope Europe Maragaret Casely-Hayford: Denton Wilde Sapte Martin Simmons: for ALG Michael Bach: London Forum (P and T) Nigel Pallace: ALBPO (LB Hammersmith and Fulham) Kay Powell: National Planning Forum Peter Eversden London Forum Roger Chapman GOL Sam Richards: TfL Simon Foxell: RIBA Tim Wacher for RICS Tom Ball: London Forum Drummond Robson: RTPI, RPC. Secretary

AGENDA

1. Introductions and Apologies

Forum members introduced themselves. The Chairman thanked Faraz Baber and British Property Federation for hosting the event (and providing seasonal mince pies). He also welcomed Michael Bach in his new role and Esther Kurland who has been agreed to represent CABE as a new Forum member. Apologies were received from Alan Byrne, Michael Edwards, Pat Thomas and Sir Peter Hall.

2. First Discussion Topic: London Mayor calls for a bigger regional planning role, including housing, call-in powers and section 106 powers.

The Chairman welcomed Giles Dolphin, GLA Planning Decisions Manager, to lead the discussion by setting out the Mayor's case.

Giles Dolphin affirmed that the proposed changes arise from a manifesto commitment rather than being motivated by City Hall. He also stressed that most of what the Mayor proposed were a set of options. Powers to take over Building regulations was in particular not sought. "As if we haven't got enough to do", he added.

GD also explained that he would concentrate on proposed changes to planning powers only, and not refer to waste or housing for example, or education.

Local Development Documents. The Mayor is seeking the power to direct that LDDs should not be adopted unless in General Conformity with the London Plan. This would be consistent with the power that the Secretary of State has for national policy but no-one has an equivalent responsibility for regional policy. Inspectors' reports will now be binding.

The most controversial aspect of development control is the Mayor of London Order 2000 and so the proposal is to change the criteria for referral in the following ways:

In cases involving residential reducing the threshold numbers of dwellings for referral from 500 to 200. This is likely to attract some 40 further applications per year.
Extend the consultation period from 14 to 21 days. Stage 1 consultation is set by statute. The mayor would like to decide when the consultation period starts, as being 21 days from when the Borough refer the application. This would make the consultation period consistent with English Heritage's 21 days.
Section 106 agreements and conditions "can make or break a scheme". If there is a right to approve the scheme there should also be a right to approve details in relation to conditions, notably on "bare outline" schemes. For example the Mayor should have the right to approve details relating to the Olympic Park area, where permission is at the moment widely framed.
The Mayor has the power to direct refusal in cases when the Borough wants to approve schemes, and would like to approve schemes against Borough's wishes, rather than simply the present negative power. Putting this in context this still only affects about 300 cases a year compared with the 87,000 cases annually in London, even if they are the most major ones. The argument cited was particularly in schemes which in the Mayor's view are being permitted at densities which are too low, because of what are seen as parochial and NIMBY interests. In effect the Mayor is saying that applications should be referred back to him at Stage 2. In many cases he could advise at Stage 1 that this was not a case needing to be referred again. Regulations would be needed similar to those currently available to the Secretary of State in call in and article 14 cases. The justification for this power rests on the radical nature of the London Plan with its strong proposals for job and housing growth in the Capital. A key distinction between the Mayor and local Councils is in their different attitudes to Open Space, which the Mayor would safeguard by higher densities and which local Council's would not.

Giles Dolphin agreed that he could write this up as an article for Planning in London.

Discussion: David Eversden drew a distinction between the roles of local Council's with their extensive accountability and the Mayoral decisions where the neither the Assembly or any elected member is involved. There have been cases where GLA officers have neither indicated conformity or non conformity with the London Plan. They should be explicit on this. GD replied by saying that most decisions were a question of balance between conflicting plan policies.

Margaret Casely-Hayford could not see a case for an additional layer of responsibility here. The Secretary of State normally acts consistently with the mayor, after taking account of a number of views. The speedy delivery of housing is unlikely to be assisted by this extra layer. The policy regime is already in place to cope with density obligations. There is also a suitable inquiry system up and running which these proposals do not fit into. The Mayor's strength lies in delivery of regional policy which he should stick to.

Brian waters said that the mayor is seeking additional powers, well he would, wouldn't he. But what happens if there is a different Mayor with a different mindset? To what extent is the proposed system robust enough to be resilient to changes of administration? GD replied that the Mayor is predominantly in favour of development. A Mayor less inclined to this would be unlikely to make matters worse. The system currently breaks down at the level of control by ward councillors unduly influenced by the risk of taking locally unpopular decisions. The proposals merely increase slightly the Mayor's scope to take Regional decisions. The role of the Assembly is irrelevant since they already have a proper range of powers of scrutiny.

Michael Bach asked what legal precedent there was to direct allowing rather than refusing? This itself would be a major departure from anything that has happened hitherto. Also what would be the consequence of a mayor's decision being liable to legal challenge. MC-H said that any decision that is unreasonable is challengeable and subject to the potential of statutory review.

GD said that a balanced decision would take this factor into account and that in practice there had been only one case of Judicial review. In response it was suggested a positive power could produce a lot more.

Judith Ryser and Margaret Casely-Hayford raised housing density concerns which the Chairman suggested would be more appropriate for a separate debate in its own right in March 2006, linked to the current draft PPS3. DR pointed out that the consultation period for this expired in February, but the Chairman argued that this did not prevent the Forum having a debate on the subject.

Nigel Pallace, voicing the recent views of ALBPO said that ALBPO accept that the Mayor should be able to call in for his decision cross-boundary developments (above the referral thresholds) where the two boroughs were minded to take different decisions.

ALBPO also thought the Mayor could have the power to direct the local planning authority that particular defined strategic elements of a proposed development were acceptable strategically (eg housing density or tenure mix) allowing the borough to take the planning decision but taking the acceptability of the defined strategic issues as a given, or giving the Mayor's view due weight in reaching the final decision. (Ie the borough would not be allowed in this example to refuse permission due to housing density or tenure mix). NP was concerned that if the Mayor were given positive powers to direct approval that implicit in it should be the right of appeal against that.

ALBPO want much more joint working between borough planners, GLA planners (and TfL) with developers at pre-application stage, with much greater transparency. Ideally meetings would be joint ones. But if separate two way meetings took place between GLA and developer or borough and developer (on a referrable case) then both authorities would be obliged to notify the other of the meeting having taken place and to forward copies of minutes.

There would be support for some lowering of the referrability thresholds (particularly for housing developments) only if as a quid pro quo the GLA confined its input and comments to genuinely strategic matters linked to the reason for referral, ie not detailed matters frequently raised such as amenity space, parking spaces layout, cycle racks etc.

Agree duplication with GoL should be reduced. Cases should not be referrable to GoL as well as GLA but Secretary of State could still retain the reserve power to call in where matters of national importance are at issue.

There is no support for allowing the Mayor to be a party to S106 negotiations and agreements beyond the desired improvements in joint pre-application work with the boroughs and developers, and the Mayor's power to direct refusal where the proposed legal agreement is in his view inadequate regarding strategic issues.

Inevitabably much of this would bring all sorts of issues on practicality and legality (especially where EIA development is involved). But so would any power to direct a borough to approve .

GD disagreed with much of this, although accepted the need for joint working with Boroughs, especially at the pre-application stage. Sam Richards supported this consultative approach and thought that CABE should be invited to join in. When a scheme goes to design review CABE, Borough Officers and English Heritage should be there.

The Chairman thanked GD and the Forum for a lively discussion.

Discussion Topic 2: Transport for London's plans for Transforming London's Public Realm. Speaker : David Ubaka, Head of Urban Design and Architecture at Street Management, Transport for London.

The Chairman welcomed David Ubaka, TfL's design champion. David Ubaka said his role was to consider the hinterland of transport and was concerned with the transformation of London's Public realm. His talk was illustrated with slides. He concentrated on three themes illustrative of what has been happening since his appointment in the last 6 months:

Streetscape Pilot Projects, Marble Arch and Dalston Interchange.

The first example illustrated the area in front of Islington Town Hall, which is part of the Strategic Road network. The A1 is a barrier to people on both sides of this busy street and the scheme showed designs to improve cross movement and unify the street design.

The second example showed the A3 Borough high Street, where the aim has been to rebalance the demands of road traffic and pedestrians. It involves more generous facilities for pedestrians, reductions in street clutter, while accepting that top line aspirations are inevitably watered down by local stakeholders.

The third example was Whitechapel and the A11 with its wonderful and colourful market opposite the changing presence of the Royal London Hospital. The emphasis should be in reinforcing Whitechapel's crucial community functions.

Example four was A232 at West Wickham High Street, one of a number of Specific Character Areas being considered.

Edgware Road to Marble Arch is a busy and cosmopolitan community where it is clearly important to simplify traffic controls, removing barriers and clutter and reclaiming the streets for the pedestrians. At Marble Arch the various landed interests were brought together to seek to reduce the road impacts. The preferred design solution so far is for a simple X-junction intersection and removal of the gyratory so that pedestrian access between Oxford Street and Edgware Road and Hyde Park (and Speaker's Corner) is much simplified. Marble Arch itself would then be positioned on a pedestrian peninsula rather than in the middle of a Traffic Island, as would the site of Tyburn. Key to the success of this project is who pays for it.

Dalston Interchange. This Interchange on the East London Line was originally planned as a bus station over the railway at the corner of Dalston Lane and the Kingsland Road. It is now a London Underground Station and is planned for an air rights development proactively as Hackney have committed to on the north side of Dalston Lane with development partners.

Other areas which were being reviewed include

a.Victoria, where for 20 years an opportunity has been waiting to happen.

b. The major area of King's Cross where the Station frontage will give way to strategic public realm, and where Camden is helping to achieve this with the aim of a unified space westwards to the very inadequate space of the forecourt of the British Library.

c. The public realm associated with Crossrail, notably at Tottenham Court Road junction with new Oxford Street around Centre Point.

Discussion. Tom Ball said that pedestrian crossings seldom are put where the people want to go and the widths are too narrow. This would be further improved by changing from white to a different colour. This point was widened into a discussion about the need to balance competing needs for road space. DU made reference to work in Spain on colour from which lessons could be learned, (notably as the Chairman said for example in Lupus Street, Pimlico where a drunken painter has been allowed to run riot). BW also referred to Kensington High Street which offers a fine example to the rest of London by having done away with the bus lanes. DU replied by saying that London is expanding at a high rate but there is no capacity for doing it by adding more buses, so it is necessary to make optimum use of the space they can have, although there may be instances, such as in this special case.

Michael Bach asked about the Mayors Interchanges and 100 spaces such as the Victoria one, right on the doorstep. DU explained that Westminster had prepared a Design brief for the area.

There was a query whether, given double yellow lines, we also needed double red ones, which was not answered.

Drummond Robson added that when the original railway scheme was being prepared the divided responsibility for ownership between SRA and London Underground had prevented proposals which had been devised for air rights at Dalston from being carried forward, and asked whether ownership was still a problem. DU advised that all the owners had been invited to contribute in round table discussions and that this was no longer an issue, so that the new scheme will now happen.

Esther Kurland said that CABE had been working with the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) researching mental health and the built environment in a controlled trial. An aspect of this was the need to improve access for disabled to reduce conflict with vehicles. DU said that a roper perspective was needed to ensure that adequate road space was provided for high capacity traffic but that at the more local level more attention needs to be paid to design details, as they were finding in a Conservation planning scheme in Merton. The Chairman referred to the benefits of the kind of study undertaken by Space Syntax in ensuring routes follow pedestrian desire lines and allow adequately for necessary flows of people.

David Eversden made a plea for ensuring bus stops should not be too far apart, especially where there are interchanges between different routes. DU responded by saying that a case in Rotherhithe demonstrated that close attention needs to be paid to the ways in which people use buses. There are cases for example where there is no need for interchange between two routes.

Faraz Baber was concerned about the poor environment often t be found around bus stops where little is done to enforce cleanliness. DU said the key to this was local ownership. In places where there was a pride in the local environment such as Kensington High Street or Walthamstow Town Centre people were quick to act in response to untidiness.

Margaret Casely-Hayford said that her experience with Building Improvement Districts (BIDS) resulted in queries being raised about the design of bus stops - they appeared usually to be facing the wrong way, forcing crowding rather than queuing; the back of the shelter should be against the back edge of the pavement, not the front. Advertisements were often designed to obscure a view of the bus, rather than assist boarders. DU explained that maintenance was normally a matter of private investment and advertisers objectives for viewable posters often conflict with those of the bus user.

The Chairman thanked David Ubaka for his presentation.

3. Minutes of Meeting held on Wednesday 21 st September 2005 at RICS 12, Great George Street, Parliament Square, London SW1P 3AD

Agreed

4. Matters arising.

It was agreed at the previous meeting that UCL would be willing to host a half day discussion about Sub Regional Development Frameworks (SRDFs). Martin Simmons advised the Forum that the more major issue arising with SRDFs is that significant alterations are needed through a Review of the London Plan if SRDFs are to be effective and so the Review would be more topical and a more appropriate focus for the discussion. It was agreed that DR would explore this further with UC on the understanding that this would be led and hosted by UC and happily supported by the Forum. Post Meeting Note. The Proposed Meeting is now scheduled for 2.30 pm on Wednesday 1 st February 2006 at UCL. Sir Peter Hall and Michael Edwards would be the principal arrangers and would speak at it, together with Nigel Hugill, Director of Lendlease and possibly others. Issues to discuss are planned to include:

whether Thames Gateway will deliver (transport, population and jobs mismatches, low standards, agencies)
pressure on the outer suburbs: how to make it sustainable? Also "orbital London" agenda revisited
the relation to the SE and E of E regions growth corridors (Cricklewood; Lea Valley).

Further details and invitations to Forum members and others are to be advised.

5. Next Meeting.

It was agreed that the next meeting should be held at GLA on a convenient date in early March 2006. Giles Dolphin would confirm availability. The principal discussion topic is PPS3 New Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3) - Housing, which is planned to replace PPG3, and is currently being consulted on.

6. Review of standing items: (By Exclusion)

· Planning in London journal and yearbook;

· web site: www.planninginlondon.com ; ePiL;

· GLA planning report and development control statistics [Chairman]

· UDP progress with reviews in London (To Be Retitled) [Giles Dolphin, GLA]

· Current ODPM consultation documents & pipeline [GOL]

· National Planning Forum report [Chairman]

7. Membership & subscriptions -Treasurer's report. The Chairman agreed to discuss the role of Treasurer in the future in view of the difficulty of being able to find Forum dates which Jeremy Edge is able to attend, and which have been made more difficult since his new appointment with Knight Frank. Alastair Gaskin had indicated his willingness to take on this responsibility if necessary.

MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON WEDNESDAY 21ST SEPTEMBER 2005 AT RICS

Attendance:

Brian Waters: Chairman
Andrew Rogers: Association of Consultant Architects
David Waterhouse: TCPA
Faraz Baber: British Property Federation
John Hare: Miller Hare, Architects (with The Richard Coleman Consultancy)
John Lett: GLA
Lewis Eldridge: The Richard Coleman Consultancy
Michael Edwards: UCL
Nigel Pallace: ALBPO (LB Hammersmith and Fulham)
Richard Coleman: The Richard Coleman Consultancy
Richard Harrell: London Urbanism Group
Roger Chapman GOL (Host)
Simon Foxell: RIBA
Tim Wacher for RICS
Tom Ball: London Forum
Drummond Robson: RTPI, RPC. Secretary

1. Introductions and Apologies
Forum members introduced themselves. The Chairman gave the Forum’s appreciation to Tim Wacher for hosting the event.
Apologies were received from Alan Byrne, Alastair Gaskin, Gideon Amos, Leonora Rozee, Martin Simmons and Stephen Robinson (RIBA).

2. First Discussion Topic
GLA’s Views Management Framework has been issued to replace the 12 protected views of St Paul’s Cathedral and the Houses of Parliament. The Chairman introduced Richard Coleman and John Hare from The Richard Coleman Consultancy who had provided consultancy advice to the GLA in preparing the SPG material for the review of Strategic Views. This guidance is intended to build on the policies within the London Plan for the management of views as the policies do not include geographical information for individual views. The Plan proposed the production of SPG setting out details such as the exact position of viewing points and the width of protected viewing corridors.
The SPG will aim to replace the existing "10 Strategic Views" in London which will mean that in future views will be an issue to be dealt with through the London Plan process rather than through regional planning guidance. Details may be found on http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/sds/spg-views.jsp

...more The complete illustrated minutes are on this .pdf file: please click to download.

.pdf minutes Dec 05