Planning in London

MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD AT GOVERNMENT OFFICE FOR LONDON, RIVERWALK HOUSE, 157-161 MILLBANK, LONDON WEDNESDAY 6TH DECEMBER 2000 BETWEEN 2.30 AND 5.30.

Attendance: Brian Waters : Chairman Sir Peter Hall: Bartlett Professor of Planning, University College, London Martin Simmons : GLA Head of Strategy Group Tim Wacher : RICS Ð Greater London Group Noel Hill : RIBA London Region David Bradley: Honorary Secretary Tony Bull: Urban Catalyst Tom Ball: London Forum of Amenity and Civic Societies Tony Thompson : GOL Ian Thompson : ALBPO Hugh Howes: Environment Agency Alan Byrne : English Heritage Sally Beck: Environment Agency Bob Chard: London Borough of Greenwich Caroline Dawson: Adviser to Strategic Rail Authority Elizabeth Dowuona: London Borough of Camden Gerry Deighton: Aukett Europe Graham Hutchings: Cricklewood Forum John Williams: London Borough of Camden Margaret Casely-Hayford: Denton Wilde Sapte Pat Thomas: SJBerwin Simon Foxell: RIBA London Region Roger Chapman: Association of London Government Philip Atkins:DTZ Drummond Robson: RTPI/RPC

1 Apologies and Introductions Apologies were received from Irving Yass: London First, Eli Apt: Association of Consultant Architects, Bill Bailey: RIBA, Gideon Amos : formerly Planning Aid for London and now Director, Town and Country Planning Association, Giles Dolphin : GLA, Sam Richards: Transport for London, Michael Edwards: University College London, Giles Atkinson: Housebuilders Federation, Alan Langton: Planning Inspectorate. Roger Chapman replaces Jeff Searles as Policy Officer from ALG. Those attending introduced themselves.

2 Discussion Topic Transport and its Integration with Other Land Uses, as part of the Emerging Spatial Development Strategy Guest Speaker: Sir Peter Hall, Bartlett Professor of Planning, University College London (This item was rescheduled to later on the agenda in view of changes to Sir PeterÕs diary). Sir Peter said that the Spatial development Strategy provides the principal role of bringing a plan together to Martin Simmons and his colleagues. The main elements of the proposed transport strategy have been public for about 3-4 weeks. The LDA strategy has just been launched. The strategies all apply to the whole of Greater London. The first SDS is to be issued in January for consultation leading to the development of a fleshed out strategy by July 2001.

This takes account of work undertaken for London development partnership by Sir Peter Hall, Michael Edwards and Drummond Robson already presented to the Forum. The integrated rail and bus strategy is intended for the next 10-12 years. This needs to be related in turn to town centres and what we do about them. The main elements of the mayors draft transport strategy for major infrastructure are Major New Cross London Rail Link : Regional Metros Thameslink 2000 By 2006 Crossrail By 2010 Hackney-South West London Line By 2015 Development of Orbital Rail Network including East London line Extensions Bishopsgate-Dalston By 2006 Croydon, Wimbledon and Clapham Junction By 2006 East London Line Extension TBA New Cross-River Schemes in London's Thames Gateway OPTIONS Road Bridge or Tunnel (North Greenwich-Silvertown) Rail Crossing at Woolwich (North London Line or DLR extension) Barking-Thamesmead Bridge with dedicated public transport lanes New Intermediate Mode Schemes East London Transit: Gants Hill-Barking-Barking Reach-Rainham-Elm Park-Romford-Collier Row-Harold Hill* 53 km Greenwich Waterfront Transit: Greenwich-North Greenwich-Woolwich Arsenal-Thamesmead-Abbey Wood** 16 km Uxbridge Road Transit: Uxbridge-Southall-Hanwell-Ealing-Acton-Shepherds Bush** 20km Cross River Transit: Camden-/King's Cross-Euston-Holborn-Waterloo-Elephant and Castle-Stockwell-Peckham** 15km * Bus Based ** Bus or Tram Based The regional metros are not just for London but also serve the Home Counties and allow for connections from one side of London to the other.

The orbital rail network incorporates East London Line and extensions to Dalston. It is not necessarily seen as an orbital route but a series of linked lines, serving inner suburban London, and assisting areas of deprivation such as Peckham, Brixton, Dalston and Hackney. East Thames Gateway will either be a road bridge or tunnel. It will unite the Dome and Greenwich regenerations with those of Excel, Docklands and Stratford. Intermediate Mode will either be tram or dedicated busway. The Uxbridge route follows the United Tramways number 7 route. Some of the proposals are for Transport for London, others fall outside this, notably those undertaken by Railtrack, and now linked to the SRA. Thameslnk connects to the WAGN and provides 12 car trains through the central area and outwards with a number of branches, such as Bedford, Cambridge, Brighton, Eastbourne, Orpington, Dartford, Ashford and Tonbridge.

Crossrail is a deep level rail line connecting E and W London and joining the Great Eeastern Line in Shoreditch. Crossrail will link Aylesbury and Slough through central London with the Great Eastern to Southend Victoria and also Lee Valley, Stratford and Tilbury. The South West to Hackney Line is unprogrammed. The Orbital could connect with Crossrail in West London with Park Royal/Old Oak.

These new developments need to be linked to LondonÕs broader geography. There are two important elements: LondonÕs central area, covering some 10 square miles within the area of the main line stations with extensions to the Elephant and castle and South Kensington. Extensions both east and west to a series of discrete areas such as the hotels of South Kensington and Gloucester Road, the office cluster around Hammersmith and the media of White City. Beyond these are the eastwards dramatic extensions of Canary Wharf, with 100,000 workers at completion together with the Millennium Quarter, Dome and Dome legacy plus the transformations at the Royals with University of East London, Excel and London City Airport. Beyond the Orbital Rail network there is a substantial area not served by heavy rail public transport centred on a number of major town/shopping centres which are doing quite well : e.g. Harrow, Brent Cross, Ealing, Uxbridge (Hillingdon), Sutton, Croydon, Kingston, Wood Green, Ilford and Bromley.

The bigger centres and the West end, together with lakeside, Thurrock and Bluewater, are squeezing a number of smaller centres. Journey times are often extended to serve the main centres and some areas are very dependent on the car. Different measures are necessary to make public transport work. There is capacity for major regeneration of brown field sites linked to rail interchanges with opportunities for higher densities, including high rise development and some added local services. Most will not be appropriate for more major shopping. Enhancing nodes of outer London are also part of the TfL strategy such as Croydon Tramlink extensions to Wimbledon and Beckenham. Better orbital services are needed. Currently there is high dependence on road for major improvements to these with more local services and greater bus priority. Interchange improvements are also necessary.

These ideas build on Llewellyn DaviesÕ concepts of sustainable residential quality. They will assist in meeting brownfield targets, raising them from 50 to 100,000, notably in ÒpedshedÓ areas Ð the 10 minute walking radii between shopping and residential areas. There is however the need to be cautious. May of these areas have Conservation Areas around them with older Victorian Housing. These may be assisted in conversion by the incentives n the Urban White Paper. Drummond Robson added that the Orbital rail network improvements could ease congestion in the Inner London town centres allowing them new regeneration oppportunities. Bob Chard agreed with much of the proposed strategy, but thought that TfL should be looking at much more than 4 tram/light rail proposals. Some simple indicators show this, such as the higher carrying capacity offered by trams than buses. (Trams are large capacity vehicles with 200-300 people compared with the bus at 60-80. This makes them more labour efficient and reduces the number of conflicts at junctions). Greenwich is looking at some form of A102 orbital route and there should be scope to use the North Circular Road by using reallocated road space.

There was discussion about the relative merit of buses, trolley buses and trams. Tri-articulated buses may offer similar capacity to trams. There may also be a hybrid between trams and buses in some guided form which is guided ad has high capacity for orbital movements. Sir Peter agreed that the North Circular Road Ð mentioned in ÒLondonÕs Spatial EconomyÓ requires more serious consideration, including the important question of segregation - whether buses should have exclusive right of way or not. In the Netherlands a lot depends on enforced segregation with managed road space allocated between public transport, cycles, walkers and cars. Philip Atkins:DTZ complimented the maps included in the presentation. He stressed the importance of frequency, speed and reliability as the challenges for public transport. These are prerequisites for successful modal transfer from the car. A lot of work has been done on the bigger schemes. Money is allocated in the 10 year Transport Strategy, some will be privately financed in part. Some schemes will make major accessibility changes including journeys which will be reduced from 2 hours to half an hour. Sir Peter Hall said that the pattern of roads in Outer London remains the main basis for transport, apart from radial commuting, and is particularly important for the many orbital movements.

Cars also provide the dominant mode. It will be interesting to see the effect of congestion charges on movement patterns, together with the extent to which bus services can be improved. Bob Chard added that reapportioning road space and widening highways should be looked at more closely. Tom Ball asked why it was that some areas were so poorly served and asked whether some areas could be improved more easily than others, notably with housing investment. What happens next. Which areas are ripe for investment? It was agreed by others that these remain important if as yet unanswered questions. Sir Peter said that it was a long way in terms of both distance and time between many of the smaller outer shopping areas. Some were losing chain stores and big sheds were replacing smaller shops. The exceptional areas which seem to continue to thrive are the ethnic areas such as Alperton and Southall. Tim Wacher was concerned with resources and their allocation. The number of tramway routes for example could be increased greatly at relatively low cost. No-one ever seems to park in tramways.

TDAs offer important solutions for high density development, particulalrly associated with interchanges. Caroline Dawson considered the proposals as all very sound but said there is a massive issue of delivery, especially of new rail infrastructure. The major infrastructure projects all take a very long time and have to be planned on the big scale. The schemes need to be given sufficient profile that they will happen. There needs to be an emphasis too on process. Martin Simmons said that there is a great advantage deriving from the new strategic role of the GLA. The relationships between Transport, LDA and Spatial Strategies are crucial with SDS being the overarching strategy.

It is the job of the GLA family of organisations to work together, seizing the present opportunity of much common ground in what needs to be done. There will be new accessible nodes and the SDS should deploy development resources to bring these things together. CD agreed with this entirely but asked whether Thameslink could have been delivered more quickly. It was thought that the GLA - with its powers under the Act Ð can certainly at least help join up the different elements. Tony Thompson said that the GLA, although it does not circumvent established processes and procedures, has the value of providing a strong strategic voice for the Capital.

It was asked if the SDS will offer greater prescription? The strategy gives wider authority through consultation and facilitates more public/private partnership in development. The CTRL Act incorporates powers in relation to demolition and listed buildings which shows there is scope for more integrated thinking. Minutes of meeting held on Wednesday 13th September at 2.30 at Greater London Authority, Romney House, Marsham Street, SW1P 3PY 3.1 The minutes were agreed subject to one correction to paragraph 5.7 which should refer to a.m. rather than p.m. : The cultural problem is wider than merely licensing, whether to 2am or 4am.

4 Matters arising 4.1 Tony Thompson for GOL said that paragraph 4.5 did not reflect what the Minister had in fact said in introducing the Act, namely that all the strategies are of equal importance and should be consistent with each other. Nonetheless it does reflect the view of the Deputy Mayor and attitude of the GLA. The SDS certainly provides the spatial framework for other strategies, since it is the only one with a spatial dimension.

5 Discussion Topic 2: , Human Rights Act and the Impact of the European Convention . Guest Speaker : Margaret Casely-Hayford, Partner Ð Denton Wild Sapte. Pat Thomas ÐSJBerwin. Margaret Casely-Hayford introduced the topic. The Human Rights Act 1998 came into force on 2nd October 2000. It appended the European Convention on Human Rights to English law. Schedule 1 lists rights and freedoms including the following: Article 2: The right to life Article 3: Prohibition of torture or degrading treatment Article 4: Prohibition of enforced or slave labour Article 5: Right to liberty Article 6: Right to a fair trial Article 7: Protection from punishment without law Article 8: Right to a respect for private and family life. Article 9: Right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion Article 10: Freedom of Expression, (subject to national security, territorial integrity or public safety) Article 11: Right to freedom of assembly and association Article 12: Right to marry Article 14: Prohibition of discrimination to protect minorities Article 16: Restrictions on political activity by aliens Article 17: prohibition of abuse of rights Article 18 Limitation on use of restrictions on rights The first protocol protects rights of possession, education and free election.

These codify functions of a democratic society. Any restriction on these rights must be to fulfil a pressing societal need. There is an issue of proportionality between aims and need. Societies ambitions are made clear by the articles and protocols. A balance has to be struck between the rights in Community and rights at large. MCH illustrated the principles by a reference to a possible regeneration project. There was a wish to improve a light railway, using Transport and Works Act powers. To achieve this aim required the acquisition of land and therefore appropriation of rights. Part of what needed to be acquired includes a school. The local authority is quite happy to meet educational needs elsewhere and that adequate public open space exists. Also those promoting the proposal have adequate powers. The development agency has the ability to help with the economics of the project. What then are the problems arising from the loss of the open space? Who is the victim? Amenity societies are not eligible to bring proceedings within the terms of section 7. There has to be an individual leading the claim with a genuine loss of a personal right, such as enjoyment of property. There is no entitlement to compensation.

Freedoms of expression leave us with further problems, such as of inconsistency. The government has imported the terms of the convention and left us with the problems. There are a number of lacunae and issues which remain between individual rights and social welfare. For us these include questions of the impartiality of the Inspectorate, and the independence of the Secretary of State. There are further complications which will arise with cpo. Inspectors can be appointed by a panel of the Secretary of State or the Lord Chancellor - to separate them from the State as executive. There is as yet no result from consolidated actions being considered in the English Courts yesterday to assist in answering this.

The Secretary of State is not arguing for independence at all, and is neither conceding nor arguing for independence by deciders of planning decisions, saying it makes no difference to the outcome who appoints them. Scottish Courts are ahead of us. A Minister conceded an uncomfortable link between executive and administrators and the concession has now been withdrawn. The case however may be reconsidered by the House of Lords. Pat Thomas of SJBerwin drew attention to the issue of proportionality and Òthe margin of appreciationÓ. The legislation gives rise to the problem that a decision in a planning matter may no longer be binding. The Beatles were once considered bad, but are now great contributors to serious music. This principle is likely to apply in environmental impact cases. DETR had adopted a ÒHead in the SandÓ approach of Òlet the Judges decideÓ.

But devolution has led to a number of decisions by Scottish and Irish courts. In the County Properties case judges though that the secretary of StateÕs decision on a call in was not fair and impartial. Also big cases transcend regional responsibilities, for example T5 or nuclear power stations. These are not left to the local planning authority. It raises the question that, assuming call in is not within the powers of the HRA, how is government going to respond. MCH expanded this relating to the Alconbury case Ð a substantial MoD development showing that recovered call in cases under s.77 TCPA 1990 will produce the most tricky area.

The Chairman referred to an enforcement case which was lost in British Courts and went to Strasbourg where the Court said that it could be dealt with by the Inspectorate so long as they are properly at arms length from the Secretary of State. PT raised the question of a fair tribunal. How much time should a planning committee spend in order to reach a sound decision on an application? Is half an hour enough? This opens scope for third partiesÕ rights. Malcolm Grant believes there will be growth in third party appeals. Under the HRA they have a year to bring proceedings from the date of decision. The Chairman drew attention to the balance between rights of individuals and those of commercial organisations who have rights too.

It was suggested there may be wider scope for challenge by judicial review than under Human Rights legislation. There needs to be an identifiable victim, someone who is directly affected. In the case of St PaulÕs School on the Talgarth Road a man of straw was put up which led to a change of procedures. The main body of HRA cases are likely to concern themselves with fairness and impartiality.

The HRA is likely to lead to changes of behaviour in planning issues. Article 8 says that public authorities should not interfere with the rights that everyone has of respect for private and family life except in accordance with the law and as is necessary in a democratic society. Tests include national security, public safety, and protection of health, morals and the freedom of others or the economic wellbeing of a country.

David Bradley, opening the discussion argued that it was safer for the Committee system to keep going as they are, aiming at consistency and allowing everyone to have their say. Ian Thompson examined the right of the public to have access to committee. In K and C it is the first 6 objectors, elsewhere it is one speaker per case. In some areas it is time limited to 2-3 minutes or to selected objectors. Natural justice has an expectation of the right to reply, but this is not normally the case. In Camden it is argued that the appellant has the right of appeal but objectors do not. The right of third party appeal may develop out of this. ALBPO is considering a protocol which is standard across London. It may become open to objectors to await a planning decision and then seeking a HRA remedy. This could be tactical merely to introduce delay sufficient to make a project no longer viable.

In the case of T5 which has been argued on planning and commercial grounds it has been questioned whether human rights have been properly taken into account. The test for this is whether the procedure is fair, rather than whether the issues are fair. This would perhaps be best left to a phalanx of Inspectors as the best we can hope for in the interests of informed impartiality. Gerry Deighton compared the time spent on discussing T5 with Hong Kong where a new airport is now built and in operation. Jobs are at a premium and time is money. In Hong Kong jobs have been created. What is needed is an independent planning judiciary where everyone knows the rules of the game. Ian Thompson asked whether legal aid is available in HRA cases. Pat Thomas replied that it may well be but it raises the question whether, if you do not qualify you are discriminated against.

Footnote: The High Court considered a challenge in the case of the Thameslink 2000 proposal where applicants maintained their human rights as objectors were being infringed because the issues were substantial and highly technical and that without legal aid they would not get a fair hearing Ð they would not have Òequality of armsÓ. The Court commented (in advance of the actual legislation) that there was now provision for funding eligible people in public interest cases, which the applicants had been refused. Furthermore other parties, who were adequately funded, would pursue the applicantsÕ objections, and there was scope to liaise with or join them. The Inspector could give such assistance as he could consistent with his role of impartiality.

Elizabeth Dowuona and John M. Williams - LB Camden considered associated issues in the context of planning and licensing decision making in Camden. John Williams explained that Camden is an education provider and licensing authority. They now uphold The HRA rights to peaceful protection of property. These rights have been accumulated over years. New proposals appear skewed towards the rights of industry, rather than the individual. JW continued that the Licensing White Paper does not mention Human Rights at all. Operating procedures may be fine for a corner public house but not for a major rave venue. Licensing powers are weak. Public nuisance has shifted from requiring the burden of proof from applicants to requiring it of objectors.

Staggered leaving times for example can lead to a general increase in street activity late at night. London as a world city should not be for worldwide revellers at the expense of local authority residentsÕ quiet enjoyment. 2 page operating plans are not enough. Licensing fees are not anywhere near adequate. Applicants grind local people down. Human rights are being infringed. Older residents have great difficulty in adjusting to the new circumstances. The law is inadequate to protect individuals. Appeals to the Crown Court are not enough to see the powers through either. Camden considers licensing at public meetings. Local people are there as of right. It allows the individual to say they have been discriminated against. Can the industry claim it is being victimised if trading after 2am is regarded as late? JW also has misgivings about access to information, appeals and decision making where third parties are entitled to take part in discussions. He hoped that the HRA would assist in redressing the current imbalance between individuals and organisations.

MCH responded to the question whether delegated authority decisions would disappear. The authority has to give reasons for it decisions, so that accountability is demonstrated,. Someone somewhere can see the balancing act working. A very clear policy background to planning decisions helps. Elizabeth Dowuona explained delegated authority in Camden from the Committee and Director points of view. The Director could be open to challenge if there is no opportunity for objector representation. Where there are a number of objections the sub committee has to consider whether a case can be considered fairly by delegation. The issue is one of fact and degree. Clearly there is a problem if there is no right of oral objection. The right of third party appeals overcomes this objection. One conclusion is that the less consultation you do the better, with reliance placed on putting the position in writing within the statutory period. MCH summarising said that these issues appear to be creating a measure of turbulence in planning. However we still have a fantastic planning system compared with many throughout the world. It may require tidying up but not root and branch reform. Brian Waters referred to the White paper aimed at modernising planning, introducing 3rd party rights of appeal, with a more distant Planning Inspectorate with the emphasis on impartiality, efficiency and fairness.

The alternative to jurisdiction by the local authority is an Inspectorate writing in the name of the Secretary of State. It may be that certain classes of call in cases (when of more than local significance) particularly national interest issues should be determined based on government policy decision. Gerry Deighton stressed the need for the stronger framework of a better structured plan which said how to deal with the extra housing, the transport framework etc. For example the need for a water plan forced a proper regulatory policy.

6 Discussion Topic Trailer for next meeting: Global Effects on London including Flood Risk :Environment Agency Date of next meeting: Wednesday 21st March 2001. 25th floor Millbank Tower Ð Environment Agency

Sally Beck for the Environment Agency explained that a 10 year project for the Thames is currently in preparation to consider mitigation and adaptation measures to respond to flooding. After 2030 the effects of climate change are projected to mean that the present forms of flood protection will be inadequate and that large sums (between £20 and 200bn. will be needed). Sarah Lowery, the Controller at the Barrier has been considering with the EA the future of land use planning in the south east in the light of these threats. One notable consideration is water attenuation and the need to protect the floodplain. This may be counter to some of the ambitions for the Thames Gateway. Other items for the agenda are English Heritage: Review of the Historic Environment, Review of Best Value in the light of the first report on development control from the Audit Commission. Commissioners and Camden to be invited.

7 Review of standing items á "www.planninginlondon.com". Check for minutes and next agenda. Seeking sponsors to boost information content and up-to-date borough profiles awaited from boroughs. Firms and authorities can post a link to their site for £90+VAT. á

GLA planning report and development control statistics. Progress with UDP reviews in London Martin Simmons tabled a chart of UDP review progress which will be included in the next Planning in London.

Current DoE consultation documents & pipeline provided by Tony Thompson at GOL; very good and will be supplied for next PiL. Noted that DETR reports and white papers have been plentiful in the last few months. á

National Planning Forum report Summary by Hon. Sec. á

Planning in London Noel Hill reported.

9 Membership & subscriptions Ð Hon. Secretary's report: TCPA and Urban Catalyst wish to become members. Both were welcomed. Secretary will amend letterhead and advise Chairman.

10 Other business None

DR/dbm 16.12.00