Planning in London

LONDON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FORUM LONDON PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FORUM MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON MONDAY 27TH SEPTEMBER 2004 AT GOVERNMENT OFFICE FOR LONDON

Attendance:

Brian Waters: Chairman

Alan Byrne: English Heritage

Andrew Rogers: Association of Consultant Architects

Brian Salmon: The Berkeley Group PLC

John How: London Forum

Margaret Casely-Hayford: Denton Wilde Sapte

Nigel Pallace: LB Hammersmith and Fulham

Simon Foxell: RIBA

Mide Beaumont: Government Office for London

AGENDA

1. Introduction and Apologies Brian Waters apologised on behalf of Drummond Robson, who had been taken ill and ordered to rest for several weeks: the Forum unanimously sent Drummond its best wishes for a speedy recovery. Apologies had also been received from Gideon Amos, Giles Dolphin, Jeremy Edge, Liz Peace, Tim Wacher and Tom Ball (who was represented by John How). Andrew Rogers had agreed to take notes in Drummond's absence. As Joyce Bridges, an English Heritage Commissioner, had not arrived, the subsidiary topic for discussion was elevated to principal position.

2. Chairman Brian Waters introduced the topic with a summary of the difficulties being caused by very long appeal timetables (now in excess of a year for even simple written appeals) that had recently become normal and asked how this affected Forum members. Nigel Pallace said his Borough (Hammersmith & Fulham) was aware of the sudden extreme extensions of time but felt this was not necessarily a bad thing as it added weight to the LPAs' decision-making processes. NP added that it hadn't influenced the way his Borough operated at all. Margaret Casely-Hayford (Denton Wilde Sapte) emphasised that the government's target system invited a simple "no" decision or a demand for withdrawal of an application if contentious. MC-H referred to the ACA's letter to PINS which she found very helpful, but she felt that suggestion 3 [immediate decisions by inspectors] would be unacceptable to the legal branch of PINS which requires to vet all decisions to avoid later third-party objections. Brian Waters pointed out that the suggestion was for instant decisions "wherever possible" and Andrew Rogers said that immediate judgements were given in most trials. BW added that the situation will only get worse because LPAs will have first call on inspectors to review the new Local Development Framework documents.

Mide Beaumont (Govt Office for London) said it is not true that LPAs will automatically have first call: research is currently being carried out by the ODPM on the best use of resources: also plans won't all come through simultaneously. BW remarked that there will inevitably be more demand for planning inspectors. NP said that the root cause of the targets and associated financial incentives and as the LDFs etc. will also be subject to targets LPAs will be under pressure to produce these documents in a timely fashion: LDS must be done by 28th March 2005 to obtain full grant and this will apply to all London boroughs together and at the same time, after which the clock keeps running. Although the current varying status of UDPs will be staggered to take account of those not fully adopted so that there will be staggered requirements, they are likely to be batched. BW quoted his experience that inspectors believe they will be out of the appeals loop because of local inquiries. John How said there is a great danger that the appeal system will be discredited if inspectors are put under pressure, but BW felt that they are robust enough to cope. He added that the appeal system had been hauled back recently to reasonable times and efficient processes but these improvements are now under threat.

Brian Salmon (Berkeley Group) highlighted the damage an appeal meltdown will do to the government's initiatives to promote housebuilding, particularly due to the on-costs of delay. BW pointed out that existing appeal targets aren't really very good and are not being met, although they had been improving, and mentioned the minister's cynical reduction of targets for appeals to compensate for the delays now occurring. MC-H quoted her experience of the inflexibility in PINS timetables and targets which often meant that now, even when all parties agreed that appeals could be held in abeyance for further negotiation, PINS will not allow it (unlike earlier practice). She felt there is a real danger that the development industry will put its resources elsewhere (eg Spain) because of this uncertainty. Proper joint public-private partnership is needed for protracted negotiations to be successful.

NP confirmed that in his borough neither application refusal rates nor the appeal success rate has changed significantly, but BW doubted that LBH&F was typical. MC-H felt that there is a definite increase in refusals - and particularly resubmissions - generally, although NP emphasised that the democratic process should be paramount, which the appeal system tends to deny, and that resubmission often means continuing negotiation. BS highlighted the difficulty of obtaining proper registration of applications in the first place.

Alan Byrne (English Heritage) queried whether the problem is surely the volume of appeals and resubmissions, suggesting that one solution would be to 'turn off the tap' by reducing the right to appeal so that spurious (frivolous?) small-scale appeals were banned. BW said that the 2002 Arup report concluded that there are more appeals as a result of targets, and that this was exacerbated by the recent reduction from six to three months in the time limits. The RTPI resists training more inspectors because they tend to be drawn from already under-resourced LPAs. MC-H said that a key point is that clients don't want to go to appeal and would rather negotiate but application targets mitigate against this (the compulsory purchase system works because negotiation is required).

AB asked whether the development industry would therefore like to see the 8-week deadline removed and this was supported by NP although he felt that a variation of targets would lead to inevitable extensions well beyond 8 weeks and referred to the Best Value 109 requirements. BW pointed out that formal extension is already an option and the ACA produce a standard form for applicants [www.ACArchitects.co.uk]. The Chairman then brought the discussion back to consideration of the ACA letter to PINS and its five suggestions: could the Forum support these? From the debate so far it seemed that points 1 and 2 were agreed; point 3 was also, subject to legal concerns (MC-H and BS both had experience of decisions being issued within one week); point 4 could be agreed provided that unreasonable behaviour is clear; and point 5 was agreed (MC-H pointed out the success of the Woolf reforms in the legal field). NP added that there may be a case for making appeals subject to a fee.

MC-H felt this would be unfair and anyway it has been discussed and rejected - although introducing a fee for hearings and inquiries would encourage the use of written procedures. Simon Foxell (RIBA) said that the appellant and LPA should be able to opt for mediation [ACA point 5] (as is allowed in the High Court) and MC-H suggested that mediation would work best at the Local Plan level, where third parties often cause difficulties when LPAs and developers have agreed. NP wasn't sure how mediation would work in practice but would support a government pilot scheme. 3. Subsidiary Discussion Topic: "Proposed new planning fees"

BW started by saying that there is some confusion about what increase in fees is proposed - Property Week quoted 159%, but Planning said 10%. NP said that in fact it is an average increase of 17%. The suggestion is that grant monies will be replaced by the higher fees system. BW described the AJ/ACA campaign, related to the Arup report published in the Spring, which proposes that sanctions and competition must be allowed if fees are to be substantially increased (which the developers don't object to if there are commensurate improvements in performance). Planning decisions should be objective and could be prompted by an independent body, or different LPA, which prepared a report and recommendation for submission to the relevant committee or delegated authority for a decision. SF said that this already happens because of out-sourcing, although the LPA chooses the reporting body.

NP said that there would be widespread objections from the local community and anyway it wouldn't work for major applications which rely on dialogue: there is potential for huge turmoil. BS felt that the GLA (for example) could be called on to help struggling London boroughs. MC-H said that resourcing is the key and the system would save money - senior planning officers are already assisted by private consultants. SF said that who wrote reports would be decided by the applicant not the LPA and NP said this would be unacceptable. BW pointed out that delegated reports are already written by technical assistants.

MC-H said that any competition system must be backed by fair and open procedures, and queried how reporting bodies would be procured. NP felt it would be much better to pursue proper resourcing of the LPA in the first place. SF said that the real reason for wanting competition is so that the applicant can talk to someone and have a guaranteed date for a decision. NP conceded it is not reasonable that planning fees should meet the full cost of the system. He suggested that the government wants to remove the target/grant funding so that poorly performing LPAs (who do not benefit at present) get their share of extra funding to improve their service. BS felt that the planning culture and responsibility issues will preclude competition.

4. Subsidiary Discussion Topic: "The new direction being taken by English Heritage" Alan Byrne agreed to provide a summary of EH changes, although with the proviso that, as a staff member rather than a commissioner, he would have a different perspective from that of Joyce Bridges. EH is not going in new direction: rather, it is refocusing and revitalising its service and delivery.

It will revisit its core business with regard to recent outside pressures from DCMS and the changing planning system. This leads to clarification/separation of its function as a government agency. In London EH is examining the kind of historic environment cases that are legitimate for it to be involved with: this includes the transfer of responsibilities (eg Grade II listings to the boroughs) and a reduced role for lesser cases. EH will be more strategic and therefore slimmer - this process of transformation is still in flux, with the reorganisation of London teams and stratification. JH queried whether DCMS support for conservation officers in the boroughs is likely to be withdrawn. NP explained that existing contracts between the boroughs and EH only last for 1-2 years and are based on an agreed level of service. Subsidised officers are autonomous and have no back-up from EH (except for core resources such as expertise and the EH knowledge base).

JH expressed concern that boroughs are expected to develop their own expertise, with nominal "seed" funding, but NP and BW felt that this was a naive expectation. AB advised that Joyce Bridges is due to report on the changes shortly, but this will not be done publicly. BW was concerned that modernisation and a switch from central to local bureaucracy and reliance on private consultancies may not be good. JH saw a possible role here for amenity societies and the greater use of local/community knowledge.

AB anticipated a hierarchy of a Territory Director for the South-East, a Regional Director for London, and basic flexible local support. JH expected the continued involvement of EH to be limited to cases with a clear heritage remit, omitting minor development s and extensions. SF was concerned about eh level of responsibility - where will the line be drawn? JH said that intermediate proposals are likely to take resources from the present borough support system. NP suggested that best value indicators may be used to encourage conservation expertise in the boroughs.

5. Minutes of the meeting held at the GLA on 16th June 2004 These were agreed.

6. Matters arising AR had attended a National Planning Forum the previous Monday at the Prince's Foundation in Charlotte Road. Liz Peace was elected as Chair following the resignation of Cllr Stewart Stacey in June. Cllr David Sparks was nominated as a Vice Chair representing local government. It was agreed that in future the Chair would rotate between the Vice Chairs on an annual basis and it was noted that elections for representations of the professional institutes are due in January 2005. The main part of the Forum took on an informal format (similar to the LPDF's) and presentations on Community Involvement in Planning were made by the National Trust, House Builders Federation, LGA, ODPM, POS and Civic Trust, followed by a general discussion.

7. Next meeting Simon Foxell suggested a discussion on sustainable communities in London (not all are in the Green Belt!) and agreed to make a short presentation on the subject, based on the recent RIBA publication Sustainable communities - Quality with quantity. The provisional date for this is Tuesday, 7th December at a venue to be arranged.

8. Any other business There was no review of outstanding items and no other business.

........................................................................................................................................

MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON WEDNESDAY 16TH JUNE 2004 FROM 2.30 TO 5.30PM AT CITY HALL THE QUEEN'S WALK, LONDON SE1 2AA.

Attendance: Alan Byrne: English Heritage Alastair Gaskin: Urban Catalyst Andrew Rogers: Association of Consultant Architects David Maddox: Scott Brownrigg Gideon Amos: TCPA Giles Dolphin: Greater London Authority Jeremy Edge: ATIS REAL Weatheralls (RICS). Hon Treasurer Judith Ryser: Dircon Nigel Pallace: ALBPO and LB Hammersmith and Fulham Simon Foxell: RIBA Stephen Robinson RIBA London Region Tim Wacher : RICS Tom Ball: London Forum Drummond Robson: RTPI, RPC. Secretary

AGENDA 1. Introductions and Apologies There were several changes to attendance. Brian Waters apologised for missing the Forum for the first time since 1990 and Drummond Robson chaired the meeting. Debbie McMullen, who had apologised for her absence and had offered Robin Thompson to present the principal discussion topic had returned from her trip to Beijing and so was able to present after all. (It was now Robins turn to be in Beijing). Jeremy Edge was warmly welcomed to the Forum and officially endorsed as the new Treasurer. There were apologies from a number of other attendees due to the holiday season. Tim Wacher kindly agreed to take notes on behalf of DR.

2. Discussion Topic: "Planning London after May 2004".

Key findings of the now adopted London Plan and progress on Sub Regional Development Frameworks. Presentation by Debbie McMullen, relatively recently appointed Programme Manager - Spatial Development Strategy Team at the GLA. She gave a powerpoint presentation prepared by Robin Thompson beginning with the London Plan Key Diagram showing the principal elements of the spatial strategy: 5 sub regions, development corridors (Thames Gateway, Western Wedge, Wandle Valley) central activities zone, metropolitan centres, opportunity areas, areas of intensification, sustainable communities growth areas, regeneration areas, metropolitan open areas, green belt and key infrastructure and infrastructure projects - 4 airports, CTRL, and Crossrail 1.

Planning in London after May 2004 was being continued by a re-elected mayor, but it is not just the mayors plan, it is Londons Plan. It concentrates on implementation. Physical Determinism v Spatial Development SDS is a legal requirement Spatial development is well established Spatial development is a more realistic form of planning Spatial development is a more inclusive form of planning What can planning do - and what cant it do?

Cant determine where, when and how strategic development takes place Can accept and manage "drivers" Can provide strategic direction Can propose development targets Can co-ordinate spatial policy for key sectors such as health and education Cant determine when and how development should take place Implementation Tools Collective implementation A spatial strategy must be implemented by a wide range of stakeholders Planning implementation tools for the London Plan -Sub-regional Development Frameworks -Planning Frameworks -Supplementary Planning Guidance (9 are planned) ·Best Practice Guidance (open space already produced).

Purpose of SRDFs An integrated view of the sub-regions future Policies for cross-borough issues Ensure that mechanisms are in place to deliver key targets Co-ordinate planning frameworks for key sites or areas Show how growth can be accommodated and phased Status of SRDFs Panel favoured stronger, statutory SRDFs Plan supports non-statutory SRDFs Given statutory weight through London Plan alterations and LDFs New policy to be ratified through London Plan alterations and LDFs Golden rules Must add value Build on existing sub-regional partnership work Does it specifically relate to the sub-region? Is it already in the London Plan? Could it go in LDFs? Permeable boundaries (E.g. The City in East and West) Cross border with other regions Process for SRDFs Project plans for process Implementation oriented Initial consultative approach Draft SRDFs for consultation Collaborative approach by Mayor and stakeholders and especially sub-regional partnerships Approval using Mayors regional planning powers Planning Frameworks Set out sustainable development program for Opportunity Areas Examine (and exceed) housing and employment figures Non-statutory To be reflected in LDFs Relate to Areas for Regeneration Supplementary Planning Guidance Non statutory, but "material" Based on Plan policies Subject to consultation SPGs Accessible London Industrial Capacity Housing Sustainable design and development Urban design principles View management framework Londons diverse communities Land for transport Retail needs assessment Best Practice Guidance To assist with process of implementing London Plan policies Open space strategies Housing and Supermarkets Discussion and implications for Implementation.

Process. The discussion was opened by Nigel Pallace who was concerned in particular how the plan would relate to the work of the Boroughs who are all at different stages of plan formulation, in particular given the requirement for general conformity. For many the question is whether to start again with new framework plans or continue with UDPs. His own Borough, Hammersmith and Fulham has a recently adopted UDP which is not yet working. It would be helpful to give a London wide commencement. He inferred that one day 'maybe' all plans would be at the same stage but probably not. It was accepted that this state of affairs was most bewildering for the users of the system from householders to developers. DM suggested the interaction between plans and their interrelationships within London would be a key factor. She also drew attention to the speed of plan making of the London Plan is less than 4 years (although the extensive foundation laid by LPAC is not included in this period).

The new Act, to be discussed subsequently, suggests that local development framework timetables would be highly optimistic. In addition to this it is proposed to review the London Plan in 2006. DM thought the overall strategy would be the same with emphasis on growth rates and fine tuning of the strategy. There was clearly considerable common ground between GLA and Boroughs. NP acknowledged this but said there were process problems which should not obscre the importance of content. One of the principal barriers to development seemed to be political decision making. He asked where the planned high density development was actually taking place. There is also a need for more consensus between central and local government, which may be emerging slowly. Jeremy Edge thought the plan refreshing with the GLAs interventions being positive and supportive and also assisting the Boroughs towards greater conformity. He was however slightly concerned at the number of SPGs which are planned to be produced and was concerned about dangers of 'plan overload'.

Giles Dolphin said that complaints about the plan are more internal to the GLA. A number of key issues remain to be resolved at the strategic site level such as analysis of value/ commercial viability. (See also affordable housing issues below). Transport Infrastructure. There may be possible conflicts between the Transport and Strategic (SDS) strategies given the requirement for the transport strategy to be reviewed to be inconformity with the adopted plan. Drummond Robson alluded to the programming problems of infrastructure and other land uses as exemplified by Crossrail. It was acknowledged during the EIP that the timetable for this was uncertain. It is currently indicated for the later stages of the plan but there is no evidence of any government finance for it, and this is most unlikely before any national election. This means that developers currently work to more limited and lower density briefs which lack the integration which a high capacity carrier could offer.

This is particularly an issue for the Thames Gateway where development is at risk of being limited to suburban housing developments rather than balanced communities. DM thought that the new housing schemes would bring their own service requirements and jobs but acknowledged that without Crossrail this would be at a reduced scale from the plan intentions. It is clear that the present uncertainty is likely to continue for some time and that there is an urgent need for GLA and government to agree their approach.

The alternatives of with and without Crossral result in different scales of nodal development (the TDA principle), dufferent kinds of housing mix, employment and at present the dynamic of how to convert from one to the other is missing. There was clearly greater impetus being given to the East London Line associated with plans for the Olympics. JE said this was certainly an attractive relatively low cost scheme. NP said that the main problem of infrastructure realisation came down to money. DR said that the separation of rail infrastructure from its urban location and hence from development opportunity was a most unhelpful form of economic constraint on ELL or other London infrastructure realisation. Giles Dolphin thought that the issue was now becoming a question of the overall control of Londons railways which needs clarifying ever more urgently between the mayor and the government.

Housing and Land use Integration. DM also considered that increases in housing provision need to be matched by improvements in the delivery of health and education improvements. She explained that work was being undertaken with health authorities in East London, notably in relation to primary care centres. It was acknowledged that acute hospital activity was not being changed significantly.

The key factor in all this is to be found in how these issues will be phased. DM elaborated to say that the housing capacity methodology has been extended to sites over half a hectare. Housing capacity is currently being piloted in dialogue with Boroughs starting in July.

A report of internal findings is expected by December 2004 with the final report planned for the following June. The aim is to continue to improve the supply of dwellings. The programme is for a 20 year period with account being taken of more employment land being released for housing together with higher densities and climate change factors. Tom Ball was critical of the effects of increased density on the limited open space associated with housing. DM replied that there was an open space hierarchy and the plan included measures to redress deficiencies. Arising from this Andrew Rogers expressed concern about the undue emphasis on housing numbers rather than housing design.

There was no indication of how the new development corporations planned for the Gateway would impact on the GLAs strategic planning. Alastair Gaskin said that one of the challenges for developers is keeping abreast of the changing relationships between a large number of public organisations in the process of formulating and realising significant urban developments.

It was by way of reply suggested that this is the price of democracy, expressed through the snapshot of a myriad of polices changing around you! Affordable Housing. Jeremy Edge thought that developers were now increasingly willing to conduct an open book approach to negotiations on affordable housing but that this should be discretionary rather than mandatory. One of the problems s the lack of local authority expertise to assess detailed valuation material and that there is a need for mediation by independent assessors. NP disagreed that open book approaches should be discretionary but thought this could be overcome if they remained confidential between the parties. DR thought that the issues may differ for the smaller scale trading as opposed to large institutional developer. JE said that the site value need not be disclosed providing acceptance of a model of reasonable costs.

The issues surrounding this and 106 agreements will need to await the outcome of the Kate Barker review. DR thanked DM on behalf of the Forum for her presentation. 4. Subsidiary Discussion Topic : London Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act. The topic was discussed with the benefit of And Rogers attendance at a presentation by Mike Ash to the National Planning Forum and using Roger Milnes 'Nutshell' account to be found on the Planning Portal. This is set out in modified and abbreviated form with some commentary in italics below.

AR said that Mike Ash had referred to up to 6 pilot projects for Design Coding (with CABE) are being undertaken to see how the measure would work with at least 4 more imminent, assisted by £1.3m of planning together with student bursaries to assist with resource and skills shortages identified by Egan Report. The timing of implementation was still rather uncertain. Commencement Order powers not likely to be enacted before Parliament's summer recess, but work on final versions of PPSs, etc, will continue concurrently.

A programme on PPG reforms, and announcements on planning obligations/charges, and revised planning fees, are expected shortly [the first two were clarified in Parliament the next day, but there hasn't been anything on planning fees - except in respect of pre-application consultation charges which are being introduced by some planning authorities using powers in section 93 of the Local Government Act 2003].

Government expects to issue comments on the Egan Report in July and make further remarks about the Barker Review, although it's likely to be two years before any significant changes are made. PPS1 (the "mission statement" for planning) will be revised over the summer and published in the autumn. This has since been superseded by an announcement in Parliament (see Planning Portal for 17 June, etc) that 1 commencement orders for the new Act are scheduled to start in September, with most measures in force by the end of October 2004. 2 the revision or replacement of PPGs will be completed by early 2005 according to the following priorities: PPG1, PPG3, PPG4, PPG6, PPG7, PPG9, PPG10, PPG11, PPG12, PPG22, PPG23, PPG25 [this is simply a list, not in order of priority - PPGs 2, 5, 8, 13-21 and 24 are not due for revision, although the draft PPS7 replaces PPG21 Tourism]. 3 there will be a draft circular on planning obligations this autumn, covering negotiations only, to replace Circular 1/97 with the aim of publishing a final Circular in early 2005 accompanied by a Good Practice Guide on negotiations: meanwhile the government expects to pilot options for charges with a number of local authorities (the Barker proposal for a Planning Gain Supplement with scaled back planning obligations will remain "on the table" until the end of 2005).

4 regulations on planning obligations will not be made until early 2006 and some parts of the development control section may have to wait until early next year because of secondary legislation or regulations which have not yet been subject to consultation.

The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 was granted royal assent on 13 May and has been published along with explanatory notes "and", said Mike Ash "if you can understand it all you're doing well". Planning charges are due at the end of January 2005 (?) and PPS1 will be amended and issued as a consultation draft in the Autumn. There is no imminent plan to end twin tracking; there will be consultations before any change. "In a nutshell: the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act The first new Planning Act for more than a decade is a record-breaker: it took over 18 months to negotiate its passage through the Palace of Westminster and required special dispensation to be carried over from one Parliamentary session to another. It received Royal Assent on 13 May 2004.

The Act will come into force via a commencement order two months after Royal Assent. In other words, the legislation will formally kick in mid-July. Regulations implementing the parts of the Act reforming development plans will come into force shortly afterwards. The remaining sections of the Act will be implemented by further regulations and development orders over the next 12 months. The measures at a glance The legislation, stress ministers, is designed to pave the way for a more flexible and responsive planning system for England and Wales (as well as introducing a new set of acronyms!). In a nutshell the Act: introduces what the government believes is a simpler and more flexible plan making system at regional and local level; This was listened to by a strongly sceptical audience of the Forum.

AR explained that Mike Ash had indicated that Local Development Frameworks should be delivered by 2007 and formal guidance was to be issued on them by the end of 2004/5, although delay was likely. increases the effectiveness and quality of community involvement at regional and local level and enables the provision of financial assistance to Planning Aid; improves the development control process by introducing powers for standard application forms and new provisions which change the duration of planning permissions and consents as well as allowing local planning authorities (LPAs) to bring in local permitted development rights via so-called local development orders.; speeds up the handling of major infrastructure projects (i.e. airports, power stations, major new energy transmission networks) by allowing the different elements of inquiries to be heard concurrently rather than consecutively;

This too was regarded sceptically. removes the crowns immunity from planning processes; and makes the compulsory purchase regime simpler, fairer and quicker to support policies on investment in major infrastructure and on regeneration. A new-look development plan system Parts 1 and 2 of the Act contain the measures which change the face of development plan-making in England, in the process consigning old-style structure plans to history. Moving to the new plan-making regime will be a major challenge for LPAs and professional planners. The new elements are: Each region will have a regional spatial strategy (RSS).

Existing regional planning guidance (RPG) where appropriate will become the relevant RSS. Regional Planning Bodies (RPBs, which may be elected regional assemblies) must keep the RSS under review and monitor its implementation. The RPB will be expected to take advice from county councils and other bodies with strategic planning expertise about preparing draft revisions of RSS as well as their monitoring and implementation. The RPB must prepare a draft revision of the RSS when necessary or expedient or when proscribed. Housing allocations will be settled at this strategic level (as well as in sub-regional plans where these are felt to be appropriate).

There will be public involvement in the preparation of the RSS. Below the RSS level there will be a new-look local plan regime (this is not being mirrored in Wales). LPAs will prepare so-called local development documents (LDDs). These will effectively replace local plans, unitary development plans and structure plans. Each LPA must prepare and maintain a local development scheme. County councils where there is a district council (as opposed to a unitary authority) will have to prepare and maintain a minerals and waste development scheme.

These schemes will set out what LDDs the LPA will prepare, along with their timetable and whether they are to be prepared jointly with one or more other authorities. County Councils may be losing structure plans but they will be able to participate in the preparation of LDDs concerning matters other than minerals or waste by becoming part of a joint committee with one or more LPA. LDDs must be in general conformity with the RSS (or in the capital the spatial development strategy for London).

Part 2 of the Act, where all this is set out, makes general provision for the preparation, withdrawal, adoption and approval of LDDs and the examination of development plan documents. The government has decided that the inspectors decision after such public examinations will be binding at present inspectors reports are only recommendations). There will be a transitional phase as the new development plan regime shapes up. Councils with recently approved and clearly up-to-date unitary and local plans will be able to argue a case with their Regional Offices that these plans do not need to be superseded by the new regime immediately. Part 3 of the Act updates the definition of the development plan to take account of the changes to the planning system made by the Act. including the new formal requirement in the legislation that plan-makers have a duty to exercise their functions with a view to contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. Judith Ryser thought this added up to a nightmare of a system for designers.

Development Control Part 4 of the Act introduces a series of development control measures. LPAs will be able to introduce local permitted development rights by way of local development orders. These could be large scale but there seemed as yet no enthusiasm from local government to introduce them. The Secretary of State will be able to make development orders and regulations prescribing the procedures for making applications for permission and certain consents. The SoS will have powers to prescribe fees and charges and set timetables for call-ins and recovered appeals. This section also allows LPAs to decline to determine applications.

The duration of planning permissions and consents is also covered here. In addition, this part of the Act details changes in the way major infrastructure schemas are handled and allows the SoS to direct that a particular project is referred to him rather than dealt with by the LPA. This section is also where you will find the new powers in respect of mezzanine floors, temporary stop notices as well as the possibility of replacing the s106 regime with a form of planning tariff. The latter wont be enacted for some months while the detail of the scheme is agreed with interested parties.

It may not come into force, anyway, until next year when the government is due to decide whether it agrees with Kate Barkers alternative formula involving a form of development tax. Finally (but not exhaustively) this section makes new provisions for simplified planning zones (SPZs) though ministers are resigned to the fact that there is unlikely to be a rash of SPZs. Crown Immunity Part 7 ends Crown Immunity in the planning system and makes special provision in relation to certain planning applications by or on behalf of the Crown and in respect of planning control in relation to the Crown in England, Wales and Scotland.

Compulsory Purchase Part 8 contains a series of measures to reform the existing regime and make it easier for LPAs, joint planning boards and National Park authorities to make a case for CPOs where it will be of economic, social or environmental benefit to the area.

This section also brings in amended procedures for carrying out CPOs, including a widening of the category of person with an interest in the land who can object. This section also deals with ownership issues and compensation. There was widespread concern by the Forum that this would not lead to speedier cpos and certainly not without much greater awareness by Councils of their use and how to realise them.

All change The measures were tidied up and amended in a number of ways since the original Bill began life in the House of Lords. The main changes: give more influence to county councils (through changes to Clause 4) and the public (regional public participation statements); retain outline planning permissions (the development industry was very unhappy at the potential end of that aspect of development control); drop the proposal for so-called Statements of Development Principles (SDP) strengthen the sustainable development clause; require the standard application form provisions to have access and design statements in appropriate circumstances; introduce enabling provisions to deal with the vexed issue of mezzanine floors; require reasons for substantive decisions; amend the major infrastructure provisions to require an economic impact report; allow for temporary stop notices; and provide for appeals on second applications. Next steps For ministers, developers, the public, councils and the planning profession what counts now is how the new regimes set out in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 work out in practice.

Critics have suggested the legislation could made the planning system overly complicated and less democratic. However, ministers deny this and insist the legislation will mean a new system to 'make better plans and make better planning decisions more quickly'." Roger Milne

5. Minutes of Meeting held at the Town and Country Planning Association on Wednesday 3rd March 2004. These were noted and agreed.

6. Matters arising. None

7. Next Meeting. The next meeting, scheduled to be at GOL on Monday 27th September is now confirmed. It is in Room 11.1b, from 1400 to 1800. It has a maximum capacity for 30 persons. Provisional speaker: Joyce Bridges to talk about the new direction being taken by EH especially in London.

8. Review of standing items (by exception): · web site: HYPERLINK http://www.planninginlondon.com www.planninginlondon.com; ePiL; GLA planning report and development control statistics [Chairman] UDP progress with reviews in London [Giles Dolphin, GLA] GD agreed to provide a new format chart for the magazine. This seems to emphasise the complexity of emerging planmaking. Current ODPM consultation documents & pipeline [GOL] · National Planning Forum report [See above] Planning in London

9. Membership & subscriptions Secretary's report The subscriptions will be sought in due course by Jeremy Edge following a handover of cheque books etc from the Hon. Secretary.

10. Other business None.

DR/db

MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON WEDNESDAY 10th MARCH 2004 AT TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ASSOCIATION, 17 CARLTON HOUSE TERRACE LONDON SW1Y 5AS BETWEEN 2.30 AND 5.30

Attendance: Brian Waters: Chairman Michael Bach: Principal Planner, Urban Development, Planning Policies Division, ODPM Alastair Gaskin: Urban Catalyst Andrew Rogers: Association of Consultant Architects Brian Salmon: Berkeley Group Robert Shaw: TCPA Carol Ryall: Planning Aid for London Dalia Lichfield: Lichfield Planning Consultancy Stephen Robinson RIBA London Region Stephen Robinson: RICS (GVA Grimley) Gideon Amos: TCPA Graham Loveland: LB Islington Martin Simmons: Formerly GLA, Consultant to ALG Tim Wacher : RICS Tom Ball: London Forum Drummond Robson: RTPI, RPC. Secretary AGENDA

1. Introductions and Apologies Forum members introduced themselves. The Chairman thanked Gideon Amos for arranging the venue, ably assisted by Caroline Green of TCPA and also for facilitating a reception with light refreshments afterwards for RTPI (London) and RICS and Forum members. The Chairman explained that Simon Hughes, Mayoral Candidate, who had agreed to be guest speaker, had been obliged to decline the invitation to speak because of the need to be at The House of Commons for a debate. More time would therefore be available to discuss policy initiatives, notably PPS6. The agenda was modified accordingly. Apologies have been received from a number of invitees including Tony Thompson, Giles Dolphin, Jeremy Edge, Kate Vandermeer, Ken Dytor, Michael Edwards, Paul Finch, Sam Richards, Alan Byrne, David Maddox, Liz Peace, Nigel Pallace and Pat Thomas. (MiPiM had taken several members to France).

2. Discussion Topic: What PPS6 means for London. The Chairman introduced Michael Bach, Principal Planner at ODPM who has worked for the Department under its various titles since 1970 in planning, urban policy. He has been responsible for developing and promoting new planning policy since 1990, notably PPG13 (Transport), PPG6 (Town Centres and Retail Developments) and PPG3 Housing. He has also contributed to many other PPGs. He is currently responsible for Planning Policy Statements for Town Centres including shopping, leisure and other key town centre uses (recently issued as Draft PPS6: Planning for Town Centres (December 2003), and Economic Development, including commercial, industrial and distribution draft PPS4: Planning for Economic Development to be issued for consultation in Summer 2004. MB gave the following presentation, stressing points set out below the bullets.

WHAT I WILL COVER Timetable What we are trying to achieve: key messages What has/ has not changed Plan-led approach: positive planning Promoting social inclusion The challenge ahead A new emphasis on positive planning and the delivery of sites rather than control.

CONSULTATION DRAFT Draft PPS6: 15 December 2003 Consultation Period: Stakeholder discussions - is it clear? - have we got it right? - will it work? § End of Consultation Period: 15 March 2004* § Consider responses Final PPS6: Summer 2004 + Good Practice Guidance * Some leeway of about 2 weeks on this if required.

WHAT WE SET OUT TO DO § Respond to Review of Effectiveness of PPG6 § failure of lpas: plans should plan, not just control §consolidate and clarify existing guidance § strengthen/explain regional dimension § Promote positive, proactive approach to planning § Promote new agenda - eg tackling social exclusion, neighbourhood renewal

WHAT HAS NOT CHANGED FROM PPG6 town centres first - focus growth in centres § promotion not protection of town centres § about town centres - not just retail § plan-led approach § support for town centre strategies, town centre management § less: design, parking, traffic & pedestrian environment The deficiencies of the draft in considering design need to be addressed in the final revision.

WHAT HAS CHANGED § Promotes culture change - positive, proactive plan-led approach to planning: region and local levels § Major change in style - planning for growth and growing centres § Planning to accommodate large-format retail Tackles social exclusion, deprivation and lack of choice - does it say enough about local centres? § Major challenge for all stakeholders - more ambitious than PPG6 Emphasis on Town centres as a whole - not just retail of goods, nor shopping. PPG6 was more top down, resulting in very successful regional centres ( motoring away from the rest ). The emphasis now needs to move to more local activity, in particular to reduce car dependency.

KEY MESSAGES §Reaffirms town centre first § Local authorities to plan for growth & growing centres - promote positive, proactive plan-led approach § Target deprived areas - tackle social exclusion - provide access for all to a wide range of everyday services § Promote more sustainable patterns of development with less reliance on car - improve access to centres

TOWN CENTRES FIRST Main thrust of policy still to focus new development in or on the edge of existing centres - plan for growth § Development plans should identify opportunities/ proposals in existing centres appropriate in size to role, function and catchment of centre § Developers should seek more central sites after being flexible about scale, format and parking § Area action plans including parking, traffic and improved pedestrian environment

PLAN-LED APPROACH: REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY Set out vision/strategy - balanced network of centres: what do you want to achieve/change? § assess overall need for retail, leisure, etc for plan period and phases § make clear strategic choices where development will go for growth, regeneration and filling gaps § New out-of-town regional/sub-regional shopping centres or expansion - not likely to be needed

PLAN-LED APPROACH: LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN set out vision, strategy and make strategic choices § link to regional strategy § assess need for new floorspace § identify centres, roles and catchments identify capacity, gaps and need for sites § identify additional sites, including edge-of-centre sites for growth and for large formats

PLANNING FOR GROWTH AND GROWING TOWN CENTRES §Use growth to achieve strategic aims § improve city centre § regenerate middle-sized centres/district centres § plug gaps at the local level/build up local centres § Increase size of the town centre to accommodate growth of all town centre uses, including larger formats Developers should seek more central sites, and reduce footprint sizes. There should be a greater balanced network of centres.

PROMOTING SOCIAL INCLUSION Need for bottom-up approach - subsidiarity § Promote local food shopping, pharmacies, post offices and financial services § Development in or development for deprived areas? § What do communities need? § Need for local retail strategies The market sees opportunities for development IN deprived areas, rather than development FOR deprived communities. It is the second which promotes social inclusion.

MORE SUSTAINABLE PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT The right business in the right place § Appropriately-sized development in or on the edge of appropriate centres - relate to role/function/catchment § Subsidiarity - getting everyday needs locally - in medium-sized supermarkets in local centres? Access for all well-served by a choice of means of transport EVOLUTION OR REVOLUTION? Never knowingly undersold - we undersold PPS6 § No change message telegraphed for more than a year - not news § Timing - before Christmas - poor coverage, no interpretation § Seminars/meetings with stakeholders - opportunity to explore their perceptions § Demanding - resources, skills, confidence

CHALLENGE AHEAD: RESPONDING TO CHANGE for LPAs - culture change, resources and skills; new tools (AAPs)/ old tools (cpos) planning for a change § tackling social inclusion § for developers - getting engaged early in plan-making, responding to the changing agenda § for communities - getting in early to shape options Looking actively at sites including the need for site assembly was stressed.

WHAT DO WE WANT FROM YOU? Will new PPS6 deliver locations/sites for retail growth? § Is the policy clear, operational? § Is the policy internally consistent? § Does it deliver a level playing field? § Is there anything you want improved or added? § Is there anything we missed? MB commented that there is no strategy for London, notably the middle range centres. He hoped that the development of Sub Regional Development Frameworks would begin to address this, provided that there was adequate attention too to ensure that cross boundary issues were properly considered.

Discussion. The Chairman led the discussion by asking whether MB was underselling PPG6, sequential testing and the impact that this has had on development patterns for the industry. MB acknowledged that the effects of the policy were large in re-emphasising the importance of town centres, following the growth of retail warehouse parks which had taken place from 1985 until the 1990 s recession. He also pointed to the time lag between the introduction of a policy and its effects on the ground, albeit that we are dealing with the fast moving world of shopping with its acute sense of fashion and the need to be up to date with trends. After the change of policy there were still larger out of town schemes being built up to 2000 and a little beyond. It is still true that there is not an outright ban on out of centre development, and the present pattern is for over a third of retail business to be taking place in out of town centres with 50% of the growth is in out of town pipeline schemes

Considering the effects of policy on multiplex cinemas MB said that London was rather late in their introduction but now they are universally within centres. Operators always choose to go for available premises now and are unable to wait for the time it takes to achieve permissions. Carol Ryall was concerned about the absence of in-house information most local authorities have, and the reliance they are therefore obliged to have on consultants with a wealth of experience. She cited the problem caused by the supermarket acquiring local shops which are then displaced with the loss of service functions. There is a need for local facilities such as healthy living centres, surgeries etc. and for links to be made with health and education strategies to improve town centre diversity.

Michael Bach referred to the London pilot study Producing Boundaries and Statistics for Town Centres (see for example http://www.casa.ucl.ac.uk/towncentres/cd/). This gave statistics for floorspace, employment and turnover for 1999/2000 for London to try to fill the gap left by the absence, since 1971 of a full census of distribution. The intention to extend the pilot to the whole country using postcoded data has data source problems. He conceded that the results were not yet of high quality. (Drummond Robson - a member of the working party - elaborated that turnover statistics would be the key to providing credible inquiry evidence to defend impact on town centres of out of town schemes, had been frustrated by disclosure problems in the absence of compulsion on the industry to provide confidential figures which would be provided by a Statistics of Trade Order as used in 1971). MB added the planning system should not regulate between firms and that the general pattern in primary frontage areas was to accept 80% A1. Internet cafes and coffee shops would now qualify. It was difficult to see what else planning could do. In reply to a query from Gideon Amos MB said that some research is to be conducted by CABE into providing edge of centre stores rather than out of centre to see how they can relate to the fabric of the centre, although he acknowledged there could be unfortunate consequences to the town centre s centre of gravity.

Tom Ball considered out of centre stores with plenty of parking were a natural consequence of the way people now live, seeking a full range of goods, which in turn are heavy and require the car to get them home. This led the Chairman to ask whether home delivery was an answer - the salesman s round is more efficient. MB cited the example of Gloucester Road Waitrose. 90% walked to it. Distances were short; they used it more frequently (3+ times a week). Although there is a high proportion of people with cars many are not drivers. When the store closed people were obliged to go further, shop once a week or less, never met anyone they knew. TB said that merchandising and demands had now changed.

Tim Wacher was concerned that the focus on town centres resulted in excessive congestion where the car driver was treated like a hunted animal. This is not the case where the car is properly planned for, as is the case in many suburban out of town stores. It all smacked too strongly of the Nanny State. Dalia Lichfield responded by citing the example of Sainsbury s in Camden which operates with low car provision but in town, the balance being met by public transport and home delivery: systems ordering by computer.

MB said that often the problem was that planning powers control the use of land but not the transport. There needs to be closer integration between the two. There was a general discussion exploring whether the more all encompassing view of town centres was wholly realistic, given that it needs to address such a diversity of uses and indeed lifestyles. The system is being asked to predict need through regional guidance, but is it practical to predict such levels of complexity with the tools only of land use planning and development frameworks? The mechanism of options appraisal was suggested to evaluate the realistic choices for the future of centres. Gideon Amos asked whether PPS4 and 6 shouldn t be combined, given the interaction between commerce and business. MB said that he personally might agree with this but it had been decided to deal with them as separate matters with cross referencing. He later added that B1 had been subdivided as a use class, for no doubt good reason. MB distinguished between locational requirements for town centres (involving voluntary choice by visitor and critical issues of placemaking) PPS6 and science parks (more based on work patterns) PPS4. PPS4 will be more concerned with the encouragement of economic development, safeguarding motorway junctions, railway nodes etc., fostering clusters and linkages.

MB invited thoughts on whether town centre car parking should be charged for, suggesting that it should, particularly in areas where it was expensive to provide it. Tim Wacher thought this should not be controlled by central government. He cited Chiswick which has 2-3 hour free parking and which would die if it did not have its parking . He thought that the Council have a particular vision for their centre which did not need state intervention. Drummond Robson was concerned in reply to what the PPS has missed is the need to consider, particular in London and the conurbations, the interactions between centres, with each playing to its strengths so that visitors use different centres and indeed out of town locations for different purposes as a network. MB said that this s difficult to model although data is improving. The GLA looked at growth in expenditure 201-2011: what is retained and what leaking out. Carol Ryall was concerned that development lacked integration, citing Stratford. Chelsfield s huge growth is without reference to the remaining parts of the centre, which requires composites of investing in both old and new. (MB gave the western equivalent of White City and Shepherd s Bush and the proposed northern example of Brent Cross and Cricklewood. It suggests that local authorities would prefer the development to be in their own areas even if it compromises existing locations, rather than accept it going elsewhere). Stephen Robinson (RICS), looking ahead to what is needed, invited consideration of the scoping exercise to determine quantums of what we are going to have to plan for. In view of the extensive debate needed to determine appropriate housing provision at regional, strategic and local levels to try to find the perfect solution the assessments could lead to delays in realising regeneration. MB replied that this was going from no plan to plan.

BW drew the distinction between prematurity and subsidiarity saying it should not be possible to block schemes on the grounds that the plan is not there. What is more important is to provide the framework that facilitates the development. Martin Simmons said that it is critical to consider the scale at which a meaningful assessment of need is best worked out. He considered this should be optimally at the sub regional level: regional bodies and local authorities working together with other stakeholders. In London the 5 sub regional strategies are being prepared this year, accepting they should look across sub regional boundaries within and beyond London. It requires evaluation of which centres are strong and which are weak, which should grow etc. MS also focused on the need for better relationship between PPS6 and PPG3 and the residential intensification of town centres to produce win-win situations, especially in failing districts. There needs to be revival of the community strengths of District Centres and the relationship between intensification and vitality.

Brian Salmon extended the theme of the relationship between housing and town centres, saying he could only find reference to the two in paragraph 2.17. MB added 2.18. MB also said there was huge capacity to build above shops as referred to in PPG3 and develop many more mixed use schemes, notably in fringe town centre Shatter Zones . MB said it was important for regional strategies to set priorities and evaluate the roles of centres to their communities. There is of course a risk to overcome of beggar my neighbour policies of competing local authorities. Graham Loveland considered that car restraint is very important, and that this needs joined up working with various agencies as well as the need to be more creative in town centres. He cited a recent example of an anchor supermarket in Islington where 500 car parking spaces were sought. Some are to be provided. He also said that much depended on resources. The planning delivery grant is for 3 years only; this needs to be expanded if local authorities are to unlock sites and deliver schemes requiring cpo and other unlocking mechanisms.

MB said decision making involves partnership: working with developers and not assuming local authorities act independently, but work pro-actively for example by having masterplans funded by developers. He was surprised at the limitations on parking when there is evidence to indicate car parking standards are generous, being available 7 days a week and often 2/3rds empty. Indeed some car parks are now being built over. The average is now 1 space for 19-20 square metres. Camden has managed adequately with one space per 25 since the 1980 s. Car free operations work close to transport hubs. In terms of competition the PPS is not promoting one type of store, but both large and small formats. What is important is that the impact is small. There is a real role for local authorities to secure local embededness .

Stephen Robinson (RIBA) asked what the overriding objective of the new policy is. MB said Town Centres First . The first two pages are the key ones. However to achieve the plan led approach needs vision. The Treasury is concerned to promote consumer choice and competition.

MB queried whether this is what we want.. For example at Hulme (Manchester) the large format Asda (over 10,000 sq metres) leads to the question, what can survive around it. Local authorities should be able to set a maximise size to the store they are prepared to permit in a given centre size. 3. Forum Officers. The Chairman explained that the Forum s officers are represented by an RIBA Chairman and RTPI Secretary so it was argued that a third appointment should be offered to RICS. He, Drummond Robson and Tim Wacher had now met Jeremy Edge who was willing to stand with full RICS support. The post of Treasurer was suggested which JE was happy to accept and this should be ratified at the first subsequent Forum meeting he is able to attend. Officers would then be as follows:

Chairman Brian Waters

Honorary Secretary Drummond Robson

Honorary Treasurer Jeremy Edge.

4. Subsidiary Topic: London Plan

This was added to the revised agenda merely to reflect the adoption of the London Plan and to consider briefly the key diagram. It was noted that the House of Lords had recently defeated two clauses of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill so that Planning Inspector s reports on development plans will continue not to be binding on the authority and that the recently agreed London Plan will not yet have the status of regional spatial strategy, restoring the primacy of UDPs. These had resulted from opposition by Baroness Hanham and Baroness Hamwee, concerned about issues of democratic accountability. It was not clear what yet means.

5. Minutes of Meeting held at the Town and Country Planning Association on Wednesday 3rd December 2003. These were agreed.

6. Matters arising. None.

7. Next Meeting. It was agreed that Debbie McMullen, now London Plan Programme Manager by secondment for a year at GLA, be invited to speak to the Forum to summarise the key findings of the now adopted London Pan and to examine the currently programmed Sub Regional Development Frameworks. The meeting will be held on Weds 9th June at City Hall, subject to confirmation.

8. Review of standing items (By exception): web site: www.planninginlondon.com; ePiL; · GLA planning report and development control statistics [Chairman] · UDP progress with reviews in London [Giles Dolphin, GLA] · Current ODPM consultation documents & pipeline [GOL] · National Planning Forum report [Chairman] · Planning in London

9. Membership & subscriptions - Secretary s report. The Secretary reminded everyone that so far only 5 subscriptions had been received. Although the costs of operating the Forum were not large, much of the money goes towards the costs of producing Planning in London so the subscriptions go to a worthy cause. The present request relates to 2003-4 and a further request will need to be issued for 2004-5, no doubt by Jeremy Edge.

10. Other business

The Chairman drew attention to the proposal to charge the full cost of recovery of planning fees. This would increase the current maximum fee housing or commercial schemes from £9,500 to £50,000 (twice this if both). He suggested that the proposal should be subject to two constraints, first that the fee should, like building regulations, be recoverable if deadlines were missed and the applicant should be able to choose who is used as the processing agency. Graham Loveland said a big hike was long overdue, but the element of fee return needs to be considered. Second, competition for the processing of applications which would then be submitted by the chosen authority or approved agency to the local planning authority for determination. Once applications come in control over them is lost. It was thought that this would need fuller consideration. Some local authorities would make a business out of it. Carol Ryall said that Winchester had privatised Conservation but reintroduced it to ensure proper internal linkages between the different aspects of scheme consideration.

The Chairman also drew attention to Keith Hill s view/announcement that local authorities with poor appeal records would have their grant reduced. The Chairman also referred to the question of tariffs suggesting that anything in conformity with the adopted development plan does not need a tariff so tariffs could simply replace s106 Obligations. A conference firm has approached the Forum for endorsement of a one-day June event at the RIBA being planned; RIBA and RTPI London both agreed to endorse with the Forum and SR said he would take the proposal back to RICS and advise the Chairmen. GA said we should be commercial about it and this was endorsed by the meeting. Stephen Robinson (RIBA) suggested that networking would be assisted if email addresses of attendees was put on the web. It was agreed to put forward this idea through these minutes and invite people to respond to the Secretary with their views, before this was done. PLEASE EMAIL THE SECRETARY BY RETURN IF YOU OBJECT TO THIS. DR/dbm 12.3.04

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FOR PREVIOUS MINUTES CLICK HERE