Planning in London

MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON WEDNESDAY 12TH JUNE 2002 AT GOVERNMENT OFFICE FOR LONDON, RIVERWALK HOUSE, 157-161 MILLBANK, LONDON SW1P 4RR BETWEEN 2.30 AND 5.30.

Attendance: Brian Waters, Chairman Alan Byrne: English Heritage Alastair Gaskin: Urban Catalyst Brian Salmon: The Berkeley Group PLC Carol Ryall: Planning Aid for London Chris Burnham: Environment Agency Debbie McMullen: GLA London Plan Team Dino Patel: London Housing Federation Graham Hutchings: Cricklewood Forum Ian Thompson: London Borough of Wandsworth Kate Vandermeer: London First Laura Ciprian: Association of London Government Noel Hill: RIBA Pauline Hurley Kurtz. Guest of Tim Wacher Peter Bishop: London Borough of Camden Peter Eversden: London Forum Roger Chapman: Association of London Government Simon Mitchell: Levvel Consulting. Stuart Woodward: Director, Levvel Consulting Ltd Tim Wacher: RICS Tony Thompson:Government Office for London Drummond Robson: RTPI, RPC

1.0 Introductions and Apologies; 1.1 The above introduced themselves around the table. Apologies have been received from Andrew Rogers : ACA, David Rose: RTPI, Davd Bradley: Hon Sec., Geoff Marsh: Gerry Deighton: Aukett Europe, Gideon Amos: TCPA, Giles Dolphin: GLA, Paul Finch: CABE, Pat Thomas: SJBerwin, Richard Max: Olswang, Lee Searles: ALG, Sam Richards: TfL, Tom Ball: London Forum. 1.2 Geoff Marsh's wife was due to have a baby on or close to the date of the meeting. We wish the family well. 1.3 The Chairman invited Tony Thompson to explain recent changes to the Department following the resignation of Stephen Byers. TT explained that the DTLR had lasted 12 months. Transport was now separated from the other functions which are now renamed The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. John Prescott now has the title Principal Secretary of State. Lord Rooker takes over from Lord Faulkner on Housing and Planning matters and also deas with London Casework. Tony McNulty takes over from Sally Keble on Regeneration. Nick Raynsford remains responsible for local government and the regions. These responsibilities will be reviewed in due course.

2.0 Principal Discussion Topic: GLA's Draft London Spatial Development Strategy, with Particular Reference to Housing Policy. 2.1 The draft SDS was expected to be published just before the meeting, but is now expected about 10 days after, although the plan policies are fixed. 2.2 Debbie McMullen explained that Greg Lomax had to go to another meeting at short notice, and she was accordingly given a double welcome. 2.3 DMcM said she shared the frustration at the last minute delays to a plan which provides the first regional guidelines prepared by a regional body since the GLC (whose plan was issued on 6th July 1976). She considered it essential to have a regional framework for London as the foremost world city, the only one in Europe and where in particular there is severe underinvestment in infrastructure. 2.4 The was a common consensus to examine in particular affordable housing. A group was appointed to examine this, chaired by Chris Holmes, a former director of Shelter. Social and economic issues were both considered. It highlighted in particular the problems of recruitment and retention, not confined to the public sector, in an unsubsidised market. The House Builders Federation acknowledges the difficulty in recruiting skilled staff in London. 2.5 The definition of affordable housing was not confined to social renting but also extended to intermediate housing for those on low and moderate incomes, and other forms of tenure such as shared ownership, and sub-market renting. 2.6 The mayor's target was set at 50% of all new development should be affordable. The questions of the impact of this step change, including whether it would stifle all development and is 50% enough, given the need, were both considered, balancing need and supply and economic factors. 2.7 The assessment of housing capacity undertaken by LPAC with all London local authorities formed the basis of the work - enshrined in the GLA's London Housing Capacity Study September 2000. This assumed an average delivery rate of 23,000 houses per year, which continues previous development rates. The figures were produced working closely with the Boroughs aimed in particular at trying to use brownfield sites creatively. This is reflected in the figures which show that 90% of London's new housing is on brownfield sites. It accepted that windfalls and mixed use targets could be exceeded. 2.8 Since the study there has been monitoring of the figures which show 102% of 1997 targets actually achieved as measured by completions and net approvals as 143% since 1997. In the year 2000 there was a net increase of about 21,000 dwellings. 2.9 Against this global figure how much affordable housing is being delivered at present? This figure is difficult to quantify in a fluid situation of new targets set by the mayor and the need for new mechanisms to trail developments. Boroughs are now considering the figures closely.

2.10 The Three Dragons report undertaken by the Centre for Residential Development at Nottingham Trent University explored a residual value model to test the 50% target. It acknowledged that one policy would not be appropriate for all boroughs in a city as diverse as London and that 13 of the Boroughs would result in residual values which are too low. 35% was more appropriate in these cases. The affordable housing itself is split between social housing for 70% of cases and intermediate housing for 30%. Taking the targets for the period 2004-2016 and applying the target figures results in 42% affordable for the period if small sites are excluded and 53% f they are not. 2.11 The DTLR and its successor and GOL are undertaking a review of the figures. Work is being done by AR Weatheralls with a view to improving the model in individual cases. Their results will be available during the summer. 2.12 The Three dragons Report is based on one year. The model needs to be forward looking and based on a further 2 years to ensure that the one year base figures can be relied on. 2.13 Discussions are continuing with the HBF to assess speeding up delivery with a view to speeding up overall supply and household growth. HBF is researching this. There is a need for more partnerships between public and private sectors. 2.14 The total amount of housing being built coincides with growth in commercial development. The numbers of residential developments is increasing; the numbers of residential developments is increasing significantly and on site development of affordable housing has not choked off development. 2.15 Some SDS headlines are that the housing capacity figures are being distributed to boroughs which are continuing with 50% targets. It is hoped that the Boroughs will set their own targets in a reasonable and flexible way based on figures in the Three Dragons Report. Delivery requires collaboration of (inter alia) Boroughs, developers, RSLs and GLA. 2.16 Discussion. The Chairman thanked DMcm and opened the discussion. He drew attention to the issue of residual land value and its impact of scheme viability. The policy assumes subsidy to housing costs by the Housing Corporation and assumes that shortfall costs are met by housing associations. The reality is that developers are finding that the Housing Corporation money is not available. 34% is the normal minimum cost which is met by the Corporation. There is however a major problem in that there is a huge shortfall in Housing Corporation resources. For the year 2000 Green Dragons budget £350m for new build. If the intention is to increase the affordable proportion to 50% the budget would need to be £600m. if shortfalls are to be met by public subsidy. This money is not available. Also there needs to be more examination of the way in which public subsidy is to be used. The gross subsidy is much higher in some boroughs than others. All this introduces delay and uncertainty for developers. There is not going to be a stable policy without clarity over the amount of public subsidy for particular schemes, with subsidy and therefore developer payment assessed by the time plans are to be submitted to committee for permission. 2.17 Peter Eversden asked what was happening to affordable housing contributions being derived under s. 106 agreements. How is the money derived from high quality schemes being used? Also UDPs have in many cases not adjusted density assumptions for many years. How are these being treated? 2.18 DMcM replied by saying that the first priority was on site provision. However cases should be assessed on a site by site basis to achieve mixed and balanced communities, taking account of government guidance. Threshold figures for site sizes are not planned to be altered. There may however be good reasons for payment in lieu. Exceptions should be allowed where justified. There is a rising trend towards using s. 106 agreements to provide finance for cross subsidy. Housing capacity is increasingly being related on a site by site basis to context, transport accessibility, car parking and local need. 2.19 The Chairman said that these changes were in many cases nullified by insisting on unrealistic overlooking distances between dwellings, of 18 metres in some cases. Hackney is now accepting 12 metres in Shoreditch.

2.20 Stuart Woodward spoke about affordable housing practice based on his experience of reviewing 140 housing policy in the last three years in line with government guidance. He has worked on some London cases with DMcM and acts as an interface with developers. He has noticed an increase in the demand for on site provision. Grant funding levels are obscure and made worse because local authorities are often unsure how much they have available. SW saw the SDS as an opportunity to regularise policy and made a number of supporting points:

1. Calculation of commuted sums should be more transparent. A London Borough calculated a commuted sum resulting in a requirement for £1m. The total site value is £1.2m. Clearly in such a case the demand is unworkable and simply prevents development.

2. It is wrong to insist that only social renting through RSLs will do. Given the reduced grant funding a wider range of tenure options should be explored.

3. More serious examination of the housing needs assessment is required. Government guidance is not always followed and is sometimes misapplied. Looking at gross affordable housing needs should not obscure the requirement for private housing, sheltered housing etc. Often the amount of affordable housing is not related to other policies of the plan and questions of what the housing mix should be are not properly considered. [Note derived from comment by Geoff Marsh. It goes further than this since housing demand is linked to employment growth].

4. The present 50% aspiration is not founded on anything since no-one knows what London's true needs are; indeed the present output of affordable housing itself is obscure. Monitoring of affordable housing completions by boroughs is poor. This makes developers sceptical. Housing departments should know these figures. The SDS should therefore clarify output figures.

5. Thresholds for sites of 15,20 and 25 are also arbitrary. The SDS is not understood to be providing any clarity on this. The basis does not offer a level playing field to developers.

6. Housing space standards. There is an expectation that affordable housing space standards should be higher, which is an additional penalty.

7. Often small sites are "called in" for not providing adequate affordable housing.

2.21 The Chairman invited Peter Bishop, Director of Development at Camden, to set out the situation in Camden from his experience, having regard to demand in the context of mixed use schemes. 2.22 Peter Bishop explained that the Borough was currently consulting on a controversial housing policy. This is in the context of a situation, also applicable in Westminster, where there are both high land values and high development interest as well as high land costs. Unlike Kensington and Chelsea there is also a high degree of homelessness. The effects of these pressures is that affordable housing is haemorrhaging out of the area and key workers, essential to the functioning of the City. Camden is doing no more than reducing the loss out of the Borough. People are exercising the right to buy, selling on, moving out increasing the pressure for more affordable housing. 2.23 Additionally there is the impact of the King's Cross development which will distort the local property market. CTRL is expected by 2007. The 57 acres (20 ha) site at King's Cross will result in a major gravitational shift in housing. It is also clear that a 25% policy for affordable housing had achieved only 15% affordable and also that many schemes were of 13 or 14 units to avoid the requirement. The whole character of the area is of mixed use and there is a clear need to protect in particular this diversity in the Central Area in a realistic planning context. 2.24 Camden has decided to review its UDP in phases, of which there are now 3. The first is the policy chapter on King's Cross. This proposes a 50% affordable housing requirement which Argent did not object to at the public local inquiry in April. The Inspector is due to report in July. In Hammersmith and Fulham (Peter Bishop's former area) where there are large unmet housing needs for 11,400 households 50% affordable was achieved at Imperial Wharf which requires 1,000 new houses every year until 2016.

2.25 Present policy for affordable housing in Camden has a requirement for 50%. Proposed policy seeks to reduce the threshold from 15 to 10 units. There are of course exceptions for the cases where it can be shown that material circumstances demonstrate that 50% cannot work on a particular site. The proposed policy is to insist on 1005 affordable housing particularly to safeguard key workers. 2.26 Mixed use policy will also be amended, and this is currently being drafted for deposit in July with a view to policy being adopted next year. 2.27 Clearly subsidy is a difficult issue, which is dependant not on land use planning but on public policy more widely. Camden is however fortunate in that it has been identified as an area where affordable housing can be provided in most cases without subsidy. There is also of course a commuted payment fund. There is a need for a diverse range of different types of affordable housing, although RSLs should be the bedrock of the provision. 2.28 PB concluded by saying that he thought that space standards in public housing should be better than private in return for having less garden space. More space is needed for those on lower incomes, particularly those with larger families. 2.29 Carol Ryall asked how the SDS was attempting to address the quality of accommodation for those forced to commute. Also was it considering empty property as opposed simply to empty homes.

2.30 DMcM responded on the question of quality by suggesting that the solution lay in higher densities which lead to higher values and therefore higher costs can be afforded to produce the higher quality. Conversely some of the present low density housing is also of poorer quality. Also reductions in car parking requirements should assist. The situation in the suburbs needs to be addressed. Here there is concern for the need for greater investment. This is made more difficult because of fragmented ownership patterns. Urbed is currently examining sustainable suburbs. 2.31 Drummond Robson asked whether the SDS would be encouraging higher densities in the outer Boroughs given that two thirds of the proposed housing was planned for inner London on one third of the land. DMcM confirmed that this was so (although it is difficult to see how if Boroughs continue to protect the character of unsatisfactory environments from change). 2.32 Tim Wacher said that the problems of affordable housing cannot be left to housebuilders to solve. The need was for 43,000 housing units per year and so we are likely to be 15,000 adrift for the next 15 years. Most sites are in the gateway area. Crossrail is not expected until 2011, 2012. Some major political choices need to be made, such as developing Willesden sidings, particularly if nibbling away at the Green Belt continues to be unacceptable. RICS are strong supporters of higher densities and TDAs and are disappointed that these are not included in the draft London Plan. 2.33 DMcM said that matching supply and demand is always a problem. Household projections are based on trends. Evidence from household formation rates derived from Council tax records suggest the trend to single person households was not continuing. Part of the problem lay in coping with the backlog of historical overcrowding. The aim is 30,000 dwellings a year and the plan is for 23,000. 2.34 DR referred to an article in Planning in May 2002 which appeared to support the contention that there were fewer single households through choice, rather than necessity, and invited comment on it. DMcM responded with further figures without offering evidence on whether sharers were satisfied or not.

2.35 TW suggested that there was a need for a GLA Housing Agency to address the weaknesses in what the market is able to deliver. 2.36 Tony Thompson said that planning was not the only mechanism for dealing with housing need, as Lord Faulkner was acutely aware. For example there have been substantial increases in monies being made available to the Housing Corporation in recent years; there will however never be a moment when supply meets demand and there will always be a mismatch in the resources that can be made available. He confirmed that the draft SDS will be debated by government. 2.37 Brian Salmon, referring to the Imperial Wharf case cited by Peter Bishop explained that this site did demonstrate that affordable housing could be provided and that land could be bought at a lower value but that this was the result of the site being a downmarket industrial site in the local plan. What Berkeley did was to change the nature of the permission to create the necessary value by taking a significant investment risk, based on hope. However former industrial land cannot provide for all the demand. The market can provide 25% on most sites but not above this. Increases in site density could sometimes offer the answer as was proposed in Lambeth. If 24 storeys were permitted instead of 14 the affordable supply could be provided. 2.38 Peter Eversden said that there should be an empty houses agency, and that reuse of accommodation above shops should be more strongly encourages. He thought that local listing of buildings was becoming an artificial inhibitor of development since it was being used as a justification for refusing schemes which affect their setting. 2.39 Carol Ryall thought more could be done to identify the property available, such as vacant office blocks which could be reused to assist reducing housing shortage.

2.40 DmCM added that fiscal rather than planning encouragements should also be given to intensify the use of land. She also referred to the figures for vacant properties in the Housing Capacity Study and to the very high proportion of recycled land developed in London - over 90% compared wit the 60% national target. It needs to be remembered however that higher densities bring with them the need for open space. 2.41 CR endorsed the importance of protecting open space, including making more of it accessible to the public. 2.42 Peter Bishop was concerned that policies alone are very crude shapers of our cities. It is particularly important to stress the need for quality of housing, including the quality of urban design. He was also concerned that there should be a greater emphasis on outcomes. 2.43 Ian Thompson supported the thrust of DMcMs argument but stressed that flexibility and diversity of the opportunity in giving encouragement to regeneration, not merely numbers, are the advantages of the proposed policy regime. It was important that new policies did not become the new way of refusing schemes. He considered that planning should not be seen to be tax gathering. 2.44 Peter Bishop said that the affordable housing context is difficult and it is important not to rely on the slavish application of policy if it results in a poor quality physical environment. Currently we are not getting genuine improvements to the physical environment. It is essential to encourage the liveable city and there is only so much development value in the pot.

2.45 Stuart Woodward said that there are limits to planning gain. Developers profit is not a material consideration in the grant of permission. The Green Dragons Report assumes a developers profit of 15-20%. Sometimes the risk is greater than this and applying this simplistically can render good schemes unviable. He knew of cases where a 40% profit margin is necessary. Planning tariffs would increase the significance of this consideration. 2.46 The Chairman said tariffs were inappropriate in planning where costs are fixed and there is no scope to alter the cost commitment of a scheme. 2.47 TW criticised the plan for the pattern of housing sites shown which took too little account of the supply opportunities in west London, given its emphasis on the east. Household formation is now actually going up, notwithstanding TfL's projectons of reductions the Government Actuary is revising its figures upwards. 2.48 DMcM countered by saying the forecasts were based on actual figures. 2.49 Roger Chapman said that the distribution of affordable housing needs to be considered further within the sub region to create mixed and balanced communities. 2.50

The Chairman thanked the group for a lively and thought provoking discussion.

3.0 Minutes of Meeting held at The British Property Federation Offices 1 Warwick Row London SW1E 5ER on Wednesday 20th March 3.1 These were agreed.

4.0 Matters arising. 4.1 None.

5.0 Date of next Meeting and Venue. 5.1 The next meeting is courtesy of the Greater London Authority at City Hall The Queen's Walk, SE1 2AA on 11th September where the GLA is due to move; it has been arranged by Giles Dolphin. PLEASE NOTE THE MEETING WIL BE PRECEEDED BY A TOUR OF FOSTER'S CITY HALL STARTING AT 1.15PM. BOOKING IS ESSENTIAL. Please confirm if you wish to attend with the Secretary, Drummond Robson currently on robplan@msn.com or 020 8449 3113. The meeting will start as usual at 2.30. Topics to include feedback on the draft London Plan (Spatial Development Strategy). Invited speakers include deputy mayor Nicky Gavron. Discussion will also be associated with the Green Paper on the Future of Planning. 5.2 The draft plan was due on 21st June followed by the London Debate launch on 26th. The consultation period on the Draft London Plan is until 30th September, The south east regional aviation strategy is also a factor in the regional plan. This is due for issue on 2nd July. 5.3 It was queried how to cover the work of the SDS executive committee and David Eversley said that Victor Anderson was the unofficial environment adviser of the Green party, whose website he found useful. The London Planning Scrutiny Committee issues unofficial SDS bulletins. London First issues regular features.

6.0 Review of standing items: áweb site: www.planninginlondon.com; ePiL; Continuing to be useful. GLA planning report and development control statistics. These will be issued by the end of June for presenting in PiL. UDP progress with reviews in London Current Office of the Deputy Prime Minister consultation documents & pipeline [GOL] á National Planning Forum report. This has not met. Planning in London. This is due for publication in July.

7.0 Membership & subscriptions - Secretary's report. Subscriptions for the current year 2002-3 are now due and invoices will be issued shortly. 8.0 Other business None.

MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD AT BRITISH PROPERTY FEDERATION, 1, WARWICK ROW, LONDON SW1E 6DY 20TH MARCH 2002 BETWEEN 2.30 AND 5.30.

Attendance: Brian Waters, Chairman Andy Wadham: BAA Andrew Hiley Andrew Rogers Gideon Amos Simon Foxell Tim Wacher Tom Ball

1.0 Introductions and Apologies; 1.1 Apologies were received from Brian Salmon, David Rose, David Bradley, Eric Sorensen, Gerry Deighton, Giles Atkinson, Giles Dolphin, Graham Hutchings, Ian Thompson, Margaret Casely-Hayford, Alan Byrne, Sir Peter Hall, Richard Max, Sam Richards, Tony Thompson. (Others who had indicated they would attend were prevented from doing so). 1.2 There has been a conjunction of circumstances which have led to a low attendance at this meeting but minutes will be widely distributed and circulated on the website.

2.0 Principal Discussion Topic: Airports and their consequences for LondonÕs Land Use Planning . Green Paper on Procedures for Major Infrastructure Projects. 2.1 Guest Speaker: Andy Wadham, Head of Planning and Economic Development at BAA, was welcomed by the Chairman to explain what is happening following the Terminal 5 Decision. Speakers from the Airport Policy Directorate of DTLR were also invited but declined in view of the imminent issue of an airports consultation paper, (notwithstanding the acknowledged significance of airport policy for LondonÕs emerging Spatial Development Strategy which will itself be issued for consultation shortly). 2.2 AW gave an illustrated powerpoint presentation covering the T5 decision and its ramifications given the absence of a government airports policy and alluded to some of the lessons which could be learned for future large infrastructure projects in Britain. 2.3 AW explained where the T5 project has now got to, what the Inspector said over the 4 year inquiry period. He began by displaying an aerial photograph showing the present Heathrow with its 2 runways and the capacity capability it has with 2 runways with full separation. This contrasts with Manchester which, although it has 2 runways, does not have full separation. The terminals and Royal Cargo Centre - cargo handling area for 1million tons a year - were identified together with the Perry Oaks site of the future terminal 5. (The crossway runway is used only for landing in special circumstances of crosswinds and then only by small aircraft). 2.4 ÊSome key airport statistics are as follows: 64 million passengers in 2000 (now 62 million following September 11th only 9% below pre September 11th levels).. It handles 96 airlines from the 4 terminals. There are 1,300 flights a day, to 190 destinations. 1.3 million tonnes of cargo are handled annually worth £68bn of which 92% is carried in passenger aircraft. 30% of passengers are transfer passengers who are in Heathrow simply to change flights. BAA supports 245,000 jobs across the country 82,000 in the local area.

2.5 AW showed an image of the The Perry Oaks Sewage Works site transformed by the T5 development. Almost all of it is contained within the existing airport boundary. 2.6 The timetable for T5 was as follows: 1. BAA announces its intention to seek permission for T5 1989 2. Planning Applications submitted February 1993 3. Call In May 1993 4. Public Local Inquiry Opens May 1995 5. Inquiry finishes Early March 1999 6. InspectorÕs report December 2000 7. Secretary of StateÕs Decision November 2001 2.7. The benefits of the scheme are in meeting passenger demand, and in providing economic, airline and other passenger advantages. These were found to outweigh the physical, noise, surface access, air quality and ecological effects. 2.8. The inspectorÕs findings were of a capacity of 90-95 million passengers a year compared with 60 million with 4 terminals for an unsustainable period in 1998 and a runway capacity in segregated mode (i.e. one for take off and one for landing) of 481,000 Air Traffic Movements (ATMs). 2.9. T5 will have significant effects in terms of international tourism, attraction of foreign investment and the addition of 1% to GDP Ð a figure unmatched by any other single site. The terminal is needed to protect against growing foreign competition as well as offering benefits in terms of local and regional economies, enhancing LondonÕs World city status. Employment is predicted to increase from some 52,000 to 61,500 by the time there are 90 million passengers a year.

2.10. Although inappropriate in the green belt the Inspector considered the loss was marginal. The degree of visual intrusion is offset by the quality of the development. The loss of ecological resource is significant but weight was placed on the considerable benefit of the work undertaken by BAA at Barn Elms. Surface access was considered inadequate and the Inspector sought to increase public transport provision. The Secretary of State though that added control was needed to limit aircraft noise. The predicted slight reduction in air quality is insufficient to warrant refusal of permission. 2.11. The conclusion of the Inspector was on traditional lines that as he later said ÒIn essence the decision on Terminal 5 comes down to a balance between its benefits to the national and local economy and to the travelling public as opposed to its environmental impacts. I have come to the clear conclusion that the benefits would substantially outweigh those impacts as long as its effects are properly controlled.Ó 2.12. ÊThe central terminal building measures 400 metres by 160 metres by 30 metres high. The terminal serves short term business uses especially a hotel and car parking provision. Car parking provision sought was 8,000. The permission imposes a cap of 4,300 spaces only. 2.13. ÊIn addition to planning permission for the terminal permission was also given for 17 other applications including 3 satellites, fuel farm, south ancillary areas, M25 widening and spur connection to M25, Heathrow Express 2, (HexEx) and Piccadily Line Extension (PiccEx), airside road tunnel, cargo road tunnel, transfer baggage system, storm water outfall tunnel and A3044 sub surface. There are also subsidiary matters such as the Colnbrook Logistics Centre. There is an obligation to bring the Piccadilly Line into terminal 5. 2.14. The permission has 700 conditions attaching to it. (Terminal 4 had 12). Conditions include limits and caps, layout, landscaping and appearance, operational restrictions, constructional conditions and controls. The main controls are a car park cap of 42,000 on the total number of spaces at Heathrow.

2.15. ÊRiver diversions of the Longford and Duke of Cumberland Canals (The Two Rivers) are imposed as Grampian conditions. Other key conditions include an obligation to reduce the height of all landside buildings by 3 metres, increase landscaping and views of the terminal bulding, and require Ð following the Rochdale decision which overturned (on unknown environmental impact grounds) an outline permission in the High Court - that the final scheme in all respects Òwould not have any significant different environment effectÓ from the scheme approved. 2.16. ÊThis means that the illustrative drawings provided and used to assess their environmental effects assume greater significance in the final design if the building is to comply with their environmental effects without reapplication. 2.17. ÊBAAs programme is as follows: Preliminaries September 2002, Major Construction December 2002 Early Stands provided May 2004 Terminal Opens 2008 2.18 An image of the terminal underscores the principle that passenger transport interchange is brought right into the heart of the scheme. 2.19 A Transport and Works Order provides new facilities at Iver, Bucks.

2.20 There is some 5 million tons of spoil generated by the scheme which needs to be taken out, moved and in the main brought back again. There is also an obligation to restore gravel extracted land and bring in additional aggregates and gravel. 2.21 Discussion. The Chairman thanked Andy Wadham for his clear presentation and opened the discussion. The limitation on air traffic movements is already close to the ceiling and it was asked whether there would be an early need to vary the limit again on air traffic movements. AW explained that although Boeing were no longer proceeding with larger aircraft A380 600 seater airbus planes are due by March 2006 which will increase significantly the carrying capacity of each aircraft Ð the largest at present is the Boeing 747 400s which carry 400 passengers at present. Thus for the same runway movement there will be an added capacity of 200 people. Also as runway capacity increases so does the load factor (numbers of passengers on each plane). In the late 1980Õs loads were averaging at about 70 people. It is now 120. 2.22 It is also physically possible to increase the capacity of each of the terminals 1-4. If, as is projected British Airways occupies T5 it will be possible to achieve increases in terminal capacity. Terminal 3 in particular needs upgrading. Other capacity constraints are runway capacity, surface access capacity and apron capacity, all of which can limit the effectiveness of the airport. 2.23 Brian Waters queried the ever increasing walk distances to aircraft and suggested that this could be prevented if coaches took passengers from the terminal to the planes, rather than having the planes associated with the terminal building. AW explained that frequent surveys indicated that passengers did not like Òmobile loungesÓ and preferred to get to planes under their own steam rather than by coach. 85-90% of movements at Heathrow are therefore pier served. 2.24 Public transport. The proposed public transport infrastructure is estimated to cost £2.5 billion. The present Piccadilly line brings 14,000 passengers per day. 37% of surface access is by train or bus (Piccadilly lines and Heathrow Express now bring 11% each). 50% of traffic to the airport arrives in the peak hour. 71.5% of staff come by car, compared with 6% by underground. Recently bus ridership has however doubled.

2.25 Tim Wacher asked whether staff could afford Heathrow Express fares. AW explained that there were deals for staff using it with the aim of achieving 40% in the short term and later 50%. 2.26 Congestion charging has been discussed for Heathrow. Simon Foxell asked whether new forms of transport were planned for Heathrow. AW said that there were plans to extend to the West Region Main Line railway, plans for Crossrail giving access to London. The Piccadilly Line would be extended to T5 as the principal connection with the loop to terminal 4 becoming more of a spur. The proposed additional Heathrow Express route may in effect be the same as the new Crossrail route. 2.27 Drummond Robson asked about the timing of new public transport provision given the InspectorÕs view that public transport provision should be improved. AW said that extending the Piccadilly Line to T5 was a requirement of the permission. He acknowledged that Crossrail was unlikely before 2016, 8 years after the opening of T5. 2.28 Regional and National Context. The expansion of Heathrow with terminal 5 will emphasise LondonÕs westward growth as opposed to the public policy to encourage growth eastwards. There is clearly a need for greater runway capacity in the south east. A new runway delivers a maximum of some 40 million passengers. If a third runway were to be provided for Heathrow it would have to be built between the A4 and M4 routes and require 2 more terminals. AWs personal view was that this option is unlikely. 2.29 Airtrack to Stansted is being promoted as a new rail connection with London. It could be run direct to the terminal. Its prospects of success are tied to other competing strategic rail initiatives and the complex future of Railtrack who favoured it. Stansted has been growing faster because of its attractiveness to low cost carriers. It aims at 170-190 million passengers per year and is currently providing about 111

2.30 It is estimated that the new consultation paper from DTLR on airport policy will be issued in May or June. There has already been a suggestion for a new airport at Cliffe east of London. Gideon Amos said that TCPA favoured this option, as they were also a supporter of Maplin. 2.31 BAA has airports at Heathrow, Stansted, Gatwick and Southampton but controls no others in England; it has other sites in Scotland. 2.32 In answer to the question whether BAA was in favour of concentrating or regionalising airports AW said that a Òcritical massÓ was needed to support the investment into the necessary infrastructure, but that, accepting this consderation, BAA supports regional airport development. 2.33 Reviewing other options for where other runways could go in the Southeast AW considered that there remains growth at Heathrow, but that, unlike Stansted, Gatwick has shrunk, partly as the result of BA shrinking to its home base. Therefore it would be reasonable to expect encouragement to growth in the northern corridor to Stanstead, making use of the good transport link opportunity. 2.34 Tim Wacher suggested wondered whether Northolt might offer more opportunities for civil aviation growth, although this may conflict with its military and official roles. Discussion on this was inconclusive. 2.35 Green Paper and Infrastructure. It was clear that future progress on major aviation infrastructure is dependant on clear and workable government policy and direction, if a repeat of the long running T5 inquiry saga is to be avoided. 3.0 Minutes of Meeting held at Town and Country Planning Association Headquarters, 17 Carlton House Terrace, London SW1Y 5A on Wednesday 12th December 2001. 3.1 The minutes amended by a comment from Margaret Casely Hayford were posted on the website. These were accepted.

4.0 Matters arising Ð Contributions and responses to The Green Papers on the Future of the Planning System. 4.1 The Chairman was congratulated on the range of articles on the Green paper and its ÒdaughtersÓ which appeared in the most recent edition of Planning In London. 4.2 RICS, ACA, RIBA and London First, CIC, RTPI and London Forum as well as the National Planning Forum have provided other responses to the principal paper at least. 4.3 Brian Waters reported a conversation between Geoff Channing and The Honorary Secretary in which it was suggested that hoped for major change to the planning system in the light of the consultation was looking somewhat unlikely. BW understood that GC may be willing to appear at the next meeting of the Forum. 4.4 There was concern that the regional tier being promoted in the green paper would suffer from the absence of any democratic mandate. The most important function for this level of planning is to set housing allocation targets. The two points of proper accountability outside London remain National and District levels.

4.5 Tom Ball said that the first reactions of London Forum are that the green paper gives little credence to planning. No value is given to inquiries and the document appears to be rubbishing the planning system, setting aside local knowledge, and making it unclear what local communities can do. Flexible and fluid framework plans seem on the other hand to be offering developer certainty. The paper is also unclear on what resources will be made available for the system to work. One of the successes of the present system is that it offers the developer the scope to go to the local authority and discuss the constraints and opportunities of a site. In the future it appears that this service will be charged for, will in turn deter pre-application discussions from taking place. 4.6 Meeting the need for resources of the system are being thrust on the applicant. Boroughs will never have the skills to do the job properly. 4.7 Other criticisms were also made: we should in effect abolish the present development plans but retain the inconsistent view that it is still a plan led system. Existing development plans are sidelined to ossify before any replacement is brought in. One view was that therefore it would be correct to abolish weight being given to development plan policies and projects. 4.8 The Green Paper on the future of the Use Classes Order was discussed briefly, with the consensus being that it was not likely to lead to much change of practical value. The number of use classes could be simplified further. The ACA paper presses the point that where there are other legal methods of control there is no need for planning controls as well, so that other regulations Ð for example in the fields of health, traffic, late night openings etc. there is no need for planning as well as the other controls. 4.9 The Green paper on the future of planning agreements appeared to be proposing the reintroduction of the Development Land Tax, which was unsuccessful the last time it was tried.

4.10 The green paper appears to favour a tariff system. Its problem is that if it is too rigid it will not be used. A tariff is worse than a conventional tax since it can be a tax on a loss. If so it should be equally possible to allow the agreement to subsidise a project from public funds to encourage it to happen. One possible conclusion is that the tariff might be applied in the circumstances where the agreement related to financial matters as opposed to works, such for example as highway works, specific to the development itself.

5.0 Date of next Meeting, Topic and Venue. 5.1 The next meeting is confirmed to be Government Office for London, Riverwalk House on Wednesday 12th June 2002 from 2.30 to 5.30. 5.2 Topics should include feedback on the Green paper and Progress on the GLAs Spatial Development Strategy, with particular reference to housing policy. An invitation should be extended to Nicky Gavron for this meeting. It was also suggested that Peter Bishop from Camden be invited to discuss this issue in view of CamdenÕs proposition that all new housing in Camden should be affordable. 5.3 The Chairman also expressed his concern at the serous deterioration in planning work being undertaken in Hackney and it was suggested that DTLR be invited to speak to the Forum about the steps being taken to combat this.

6.0 Review of standing items: á web site: www.planninginlondon.com; ePiL; á Planning in London [Noel Hill, chairman advisory group/RIBA] BW is preparing the next issue. AW was invited to see if BAA were willing to contribute their response to the infrastructure green paper in addition to the notes deriving from the minutes. á GLA planning report and development control statistics. á UDP progress with reviews in London These would need to await the return of Giles Dolphin. á Current DoE consultation documents & pipeline. These had been provided by GOL. á National Planning Forum report . DR attended in the ChairmanÕs absence for the discussion on the Green paper. He said that there were differences of view between RICS and investors over the value of outline applications, and it had been accepted that outline applications supported by masterplans for major sites should assume greater prominence.

7.0 Membership & subscriptions Ð Secretary's report. Subscriptions are still outstanding from a number of members of the Forum for 2001-2. Subscriptions for 2002-3 fall due in April 2002.

8.0 Other business None.