Planning in London

LONDON PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FORUM MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD AT THE GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY, ROMNEY HOUSE, MARSHAM STREET, SW1P 3PY BETWEEN 2.30 AND 5.30.

Attendance: Brian Waters : Chairman Nicky Gavron : Deputy Mayor - GLA Martin Simmons : GLA Head of Strategy Group Tim Wacher : RICS - Greater London Group Irving Yass: London First Noel Hill : RIBA London Region Bill Bailey: RIBA Simon Foxell: RIBA London Region Ken Dytor : Urban Catalyst Tim Southall : National Housing Federation Tom Ball: London Forum of Amenity and Civic Societies Tony Thompson : GOL Emma Coulter: GOL Ian Thompson : ALBPO Alan Byrne : English Heritage Gideon Amos : Planning Aid for London Richard Linton : GLA Giles Dolphin : GLA Anna Burns : Environment Agency Brian Salmon Berkeley Group PLC Carl Powell : Westminster City Council (Part only) Eli Apt: Association of Consultant Architects Drummond Robson: RTPI/RPC Nicky Gavron, Deputy Mayor of the GLA appeared as guest speaker and for discussion of the emerging Spatial Development Strategy.

1.0 Apologies. 1.1 Apologies were received from Graham Hutchings: Cricklewood Community Forum and Michael Edwards from UCL.

2.0 Minutes of meeting held on 7th June at 2.30 at RIBA Headquarters, 66 Portland Place London W1 2.1 Tom Ball considered that his points were not correctly recorded and wished for certain amendments affecting paragraphs 4.13, 5.17 and 5.18. The original minute is quoted in appendix 1 below between inverted commas and it was agreed the suggested alterations and replacements should appear in these minutes. The minutes were otherwise accepted.

3.0 Matters arising 3.1 None.

4.0 Discussion Topic "The Emerging Spatial Development Strategy Guest Speaker: Nicky Gavron, Deputy Mayor of the Greater London Authority. 4.1 The Chairman welcomed The Deputy Mayor on behalf of the Forum and invited her to open the discussion. 4.2 Nicky Gavron explained that both her role and the Spatial Development Strategy are evolving in the newly created Authority. Her appointment of Deputy Mayor to Ken Livingston is for a year only (- which has given rise to the quip describing her as "second fiddle to a one man band"). 4.3 The government reaction to the LPAC policies and LPAC's endowment of policies formulated over the last decade has been welcoming. There is cross party support for them. 4.4 The Greater London Authority Act 1999 is unique in defining three principal purposes of the GLA acting in the public interest. These are economic and social development and environmental improvement in Greater London. (Section 30). This approach is also required to serve the objective of sustainable development in the United Kingdom. This approach seeks to avoid short-term trade offs. So the framework is for equity, the economy and environment ("the three E's"). The policy basis imposes the duty to promote the health of Londoners. 8 strategies are also recognised as duties of the authority: Transport, The London Development Agency Strategy, Spatial Development Strategy, The London Biodiversity Action Plan, The Municipal Waste Management Strategy, The London Air Quality Strategy , The London Ambient Noise Strategy, and The Culture Strategy.

4.5 The Spatial Development Strategy, though not formally recognised in the Act as the principal strategy, is seen to be the "Strategy of Strategies" by the Mayor and is similarly viewed as such by Nick Raynsford - who steered the legislation through Parliament - and others. It will of course replace PPG3 when adopted and requires certificates of conformity for development plans. Unlike the other strategies it is subject to public examination. There is the further duty of consistency of the 8 strategies to ensure integration and the SDS provides the enclosing package for the mutually supporting packages of strategies. 4.6 The mayor also has added housing and energy as two further strategies which should be considered. 4.7 The SDS s concerned not only with what but also how, with whom and where. It is not only regulatory but also should provide the delivery mechanism. It should set out an exemplary blueprint for sustainability by 2010. This has led Ken Livingston to say that he needs two Mayoral terms to deliver the plan as a vision to 2010. Nicky Gavron considered that it may in fact require three terms. 4.8 Transport is indivisible from land use strategy. This is clearly understood by the Mayor and the strategy team. The holistic SDS should provide a solid caucus of policies and justifications. 4.9 At present a "Dummy Document" is in preparation which is vertically and laterally integrated. There is considerable liaison with others on it. Various specialist groups including a policy commission and a blue skies group are currently advising the permanent staffs wit a view to producing a short term framework by November to December for discussion with Stakeholders leading to an outline SDS by Christmas and a draft SDS by the Spring. There is also pressure from day to day considerations to produce a tall buildings policy in advance of this. (The Deputy Mayor indicated that it was important to distinguish between high density and high rise, which is why the term tall buildings is preferred. See also 4.34 below).

4.10 The work being undertaken by the core of in house staff who demonstrate a dedicated commitment needs to be augmented by work being undertaken by others, for example by short-term secondments. 4.11 Development Control responsibilities are one of the family of different planning strengths available within the GLA, others being the LDA planning team derived from English Partnerships concerned principally with ownership of land and resources, and the Transport for London group. The Development Control team is wrongly called planning decisions team and is more appropriately a strategic planning team in the family of planning teams within the GLA. The different teams complement each other. They are also working with the boroughs, adding the complementary skills, especially from the private sector, as and when needed. Of particular importance are urban design and masterplanning skills. 4.12 There are also links with major developers. 4.13 Yesterday there were 90 cases being considered by the development control team. Not all of them statutory referrals. Examples include Newham's Victoria Dock where the Borough wishes to work with GLA. This contrasts with Croydon where proposals show a disappointing lack of quality. There are also areas which the GLA wish to examine directly such as Paddington Basin, Goods Yard and St Mary's Hospital. 4.14 NG has had discussions with Alistair Morton in his capacity as Chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority, notably concerned with interchanges. She is also on the Integration Sub Board of Transport for London, which is chaired by Bob Lane. It is clear that interchanges are important to the emerging structure of London, including the concepts and principles identified in the work London's Spatial Economy by Sir Peter Hall, Michael Edwards and Drummond Robson for Ringrail (Orbi-rail). There is a whole job concerned with station environments and opportunities to improve them, together with the associated public realm. Richard Rogers, as cabinet member and adviser will be helping the GLA with this work. One consideration is that streets will not work if they have too much traffic in them.

4.15 Congestion charging is being closely examined with the fare of ?5 being proposed, which is equivalent to little more than an hour on a meter, for entering Central London. This proposal will need to have support from Londoners to succeed. A way needs to be found to ensure its financial success. The GLA Transport settlement is generous. It is backloaded. Congestion charging will stand or fall on being brought in together with public transport improvements. 4.16 In the discussions with Alistair Morton NG stressed the need for seamless integration of train and underground journeys for Londoners. Mr. Morton "has gone away to think about this". 4.17 It is recognised that the Underground could be better than it is now. There are also efforts going into reallocating road space and improving bus transport. The whole road network is being re-examined to identify different categories of buses: some larger (bendy buses), rapid radials and possibly rapid radials, hubs and hopper buses. Theses should be linked to a taxi to hail service for suburban movements. 4.18 The relationship between Ringrail (Orbi-rail) and the pattern of declining town centres, identified in the London's Spatial Economy report, is being considered. There is the need for another layer of interchanges in old suburbs. It is necessary to reuse road surfaces selectively. There may be the need for more trams, as in Croydon, although we cannot afford too many. 4.19 At this point contributions were invited from those present.

4.20 Irving Yass, London First agreed that the relationship with the SRA is very important and was concerned that this body is "not very London focussed". Its tends to think in traditional rail compartments and undertake its transport planing against existing patterns of demand. NG said that it was intended to have a series of one off strategic meetings to see where things are going although she recognised the concern and the need for Routes for London. One objective is to remove freight to increase passenger access. An example is of the North London Line. Alistair Morton's objective is to look after commuters first. 4.21 Drummond Robson referred to the London Spatial Economy work, which was aimed to show the interrelationships between key drivers of change in London : notably infrastructure, the economy, and town centres, and their relationship to housing. He supported IY's concern and stressed how important it is to plan land use and transportation together throughout the SDS strategy making. ("London is about being there more than getting there"). 4.22 NG referred to Susan Kramer's role as Chair of the Rail Sub Board of GLA and to David Quarmby's role in it. She considered that the new rail franchises to Train Operating Companies has not so far been as London would have wished. 4.23 IY added that the 10 year Transport Plan should include checks on growth in commuting. 4.24 Martin Simmons agreed. He stressed the greater importance of movement within London, including Ringrail so that areas currently of poor access are improved. To do this requires proactive implementation.

4.25 Tim Wacher related this to the importance of key development sites, inclusive of improved light rail access for example on old tram and trolley bus corridors. There was also criticism of the historical long bus routes (the number 24 was cited) which suffer delays from being routed from suburban area to suburban area through more congested Central London. Buses do not take people where they want to go. 4.26 TW also mentioned hospital planning as being divorced from other land use and transportation considerations. NG confirmed that there is a need for a fresh look at bus desire lines. Some need not follow main roads. The relationship between buses and taxis needs to be seen as ore complementary. There is an opportunity for "light licensing". Higher densities around transport interchanges and fuller development of hub and spoke principles will help facilitate this. These issues will be of particular importance in the suburbs. 4.27 IY considered that the present bus system is ossified and was critical of LT's inflexibility in route planning where they should be more responsive to new ideas. 4.28 NG stressed that much of the present thinking should be directed towards where we want to be in 2012, particularly as many of the initiatives referred to take one or two decades to achieve. 4.29 Gideon Amos (Currently from Planning Aid for London and shortly to become Director of Town and Country Planning Association) concurred with the need to look closely at Interchanges and the work of the LDA. He drew attention to the contribution that the voluntary sector can make and to the importance of an open process. NG accepted the voluntary sector had much to offer. This is reinforced by the intensity of letters received daily in GLA, notably by the Planning Decisions Manager.

4.30 Simon Foxell (RIBA) drew attention to the importance of the public realm and the need for SDS policies to address it. He referred to the draft report "Design for a Greater London which is being prepared by RIBA in collaboration with others. He stressed the importance of these policies in improving the quality of urban development. NG asked how this work was relating to that of UDAL and Nick Cowan. SF explained that the aim was to try to pull together the work of various groups and includes contributions from Nick Cowan. Paul Finch of CABE had prepared much the present draft, but it was still at a relatively early stage. He would welcome the input of SDS ideas and the GLAs own views. NG said that Public policy on architecture and design will be advised by Richard Rogers and thought that a meeting with Richard Rogers should be considered to take this forward. It is clearly important how to make the SDS happen on the ground. The GLA will here act as a facilitating resource, linking for example to the work of housebuilders to encourage them to raise their sights in design. Meetings have already taken place with them. Higher density developments can result in "win-win" situations. 4.31 Tim Wacher spoke about Transport Development Areas and referred to the TDA report (which NG asked to see). He drew attention to the opportunities in London, notably rail opportunities, together with the hierarchy of buses. The opportunity exists to link interchanges with their hinterlands (E.g. Ringrail). He also referred to Transport Corridors. Martin Simmons endorsed the importance of these and stressed the need for case studies to work up the TDA principles as a development mechanism. 4.32 Ken Dytor (Urban Catalyst) said that he was currently working on several developments which could provide appropriate case studies, for example for Barking and Dagenham Council, e.g. how to provide a mix of uses which offers regeneration and housing at appropriate densities 4.33 Anna Burns (The Environment Agency) advised that the Agency is currently examining sustainable urban drainage systems and the need for their safeguarding as a central element of sustainability. NG said that The Mayor is of course looking at The Thames and other Waterways Strategies. George Nicholson is chairing this work with NG as his Vice Chair. 4.34 Tom Ball (London Forum) spoke about high rise and high-density building. Higher densities lead to increases in the value of land. The pressure for higher densities is an urgent issue which needs to be addressed now. It is one which needs to be contained or curtailed now. (The French case of La Defense was cited by Brian Waters as the Parisian response to this issue). NG gave the example of Brisbane where High Buildings had destroyed much of the character of the city. She drew attention to the challenge of clusters, asking how far one can plan for clusters of tall buildings which are pleasing (e.g. Gaudi's Sagrada Familia) or the concept of a village in the sky. This is linked with the question of how to achieve mixed use and the effect that dense development may have on people occupying the bottom of buildings. The LPAC policy guide is currently being reviewed with the intention of setting a robust and locational framework.

4.35 Tom Ball thought that Manhattan may be an acceptable cluster but Croydon not so. 4.36 Giles Dolphin (GLA) referred to the situation in Inner London where high density does not mean tall buildings but densities of 780 habitable rooms per hectare (316 hra) have been achieved. Noel Hill cited the similar example of Lillington Gardens in Pimlico. 4.37 Eli Apt (Association of Consultant Architects) stressed the importance of quality of design and asked how this can be imprinted on the policy agenda so that it sticks. NG referred to work with English heritage and CABE and The Chairman referred to the CABE publication "By Design". 4.38 The Chairman thanked The Deputy Mayor for a very coherent and helpful overview and summary of present thinking in many areas of the SDS as well as the hospitality of GLA and asked to continue the dialogue with GLA as the SDS emerges. It was suggested that the initial work could be provided to the Forum if it was available before the December meeting, alternatively a smaller task force from LPDF could be asked to consider it in January 2001. Martin Simmons referred to the continuing links with the Forum and discussions being held with Drummond Robson, Sir Peter Hall and Michael Edwards, building on the earlier work. He thought that it would be particularly helpful to develop the dialogue further at the Forum meeting in March/April 2001 when the first draft SDS was available.

5.0 Subsidiary Discussion Topic 1: Licensing White Paper - Government versus Local Government. Irving Yass from London First. 5.1 The Chairman invited Irving Yass to open discussion of this topic in which he declared an interest in the Sugar Reef case currently being considered where the aim was to remain open until 3a.m rather than 1a.m. The evidence on this is ongoing. It is the view of local people that late night opening is in conflict with amenity concerns of residents. It was hoped that Carl Powell from Westminster, who had been in attendance, would have offered the alternative case, but CP was unable to stay. 5.2 Irving Yass set out the argument for the 24 hour City. The origins of this come from London's markets which have traded at all hours and as well as being important contributors to the economy but also require late night recreation places for those working unsocial hours. This has now extended to the areas of culture, entertainment, the media and theatre which also are important in both London's economy and the cultural reputation of London in the World. The new information world operates around the clock. London attracts and needs to attract people from around the world who like the buzz of the late night city. Particular areas are becoming foci of this such as the Loft environments of Camberwell and Shoreditch. Other comparable cities (Tokyo, New York, Los Angeles and Paris) offer 24 hour services and London should not be seen to be provincial by comparison. The risk is that they develop a reputation for being boring places such as Brussels). 5.3 IY paraphrased Carl Powell's position for Westminster. The Council view is that the 24 hour city is not in the interests of everyone in an area. The powerful Westminster Residents' Association object to the proposition, and are concerned about public order and offences against it resulting from drunkenness and drug taking. 5.4 IY contrasted the picture with New York where the 24 hour city does not produce the same levels of conflict with residents even though there is a much larger residential population in both Manhattan and the Boroughs such as Queens. Unlike New York policing in London seems to be largely abdicated at night. Closing time is only one part of the issue. In Australia licensing ceased at 6pm resulting in more concentrated ("binge") drinking before this early closure and high levels of drunkenness. Later hours solved the problem in spite of fears by sceptics. 5.5 Another aspect of the problem is to concentrate the areas of 24 hour City or to encourage their dispersal over a wider area. Thus at present Soho and Covent Garden are open until 1a.m compared with 11p.m. elsewhere. 5.6 Tim Wacher, a Trustee of the Covent Garden Area Trust said the problem was a product of mixed use with many living over commercial premises. Dust carts operate from 5a.m. and so if late opening is until 3a.m. people may get only 2 hours sleep, find it intolerable and move away from the area. 5.7 Tom Ball (here of the Westminster Society Committee) said that the culture of drinking was quite a devastating issue for residents, not just in Westminster but throughout the country. Now people, notably youngsters, drink in a different way. This leads to rowdyism which is disturbing to residents. The picture is quite different in Manhattan where air conditioned buildings are insulated from their surroundings and protected from external noise. The change in habits and the pressure on streets in the area of Leicester Square and Charing Cross Road is now enormous. The cultural problem is wider than merely licensing, whether to 2pm or 4pm. What happens when places are closed. Transport will not then pick up people and further problems result. In view of this the question is what Westminster should be doing to facilitate the 24 hour City? They should produce the infrastructure to facilitate the change. 5.8 TB added that the amount that people drink has changed. Whereas it used to be on Friday nights now it is every night. He cited Queen's Square, once very quiet and now busy on a Monday night, not with tourists but with local people. This represents a cultural change. 5.9 Sarah Dixey (Wandsworth) said that Barcelona was experiencing similar difficulties of noise. And noisy activity was being encouraged to go out of town rather than stay in the City. 5.10 Gideon Amos once a City Centre Ward Councillor explained that there is a dislocation between what industry and the public sector are expected to respond. Although the 24 hour City has widespread agreement to public implications are not recognised. The move towards the 24 hour City cannot be expected to occur without controversy. 5.11 TW also added that a change in climate had had its effects. New trading stalls now operate all year round, not simply from March to November as predicted. 5.12 The Chairman said that cafe life in London has not been enjoyed to the same extent as Paris in spite of their higher rainfall, and this is now changing. The attraction of the buzz of the 24 hour city to many responsible, professional and serious people, (journalists for example), reinforces their identity with the place. It is "an extreme example of ageism" when this shift is not understood. 5.13 Ian Thompson (Wandsworth) said that A3 uses such as restaurants are needed because otherwise many town centres would be struggling to survive. There needs to be close liaison between licensing and the planning process, particularly in the fringe areas around the centre. He noticed a trend towards travelling to the local centre before going home. 5.14 Simon Foxell said that Westminster was swimming against the tide and that they needed to address the new social phenomenon. The Chairman added that forced closing times lead to more growth and disturbance since they encourage people to leave in masses.

6.0 Subsidiary DiscussionTopic 2: 'Planning Users' Concordat'. There was no speaker for this. Martin Simmons explained that the planned speaker was no longer at LGA and identified his successor for a possible reintroduction of the item at next meeting. [now confirmed].

7.0 Date & topic for next meeting 7.1 The next meeting is 6th December at 2.30 at Government Office for London Riverwalk House 157-161 Millbank London SW1P 4RR when the proposed topics are Transport and its integration with other land uses, Human Rights Act and the Impact of the European Convention, and SDS update.

8.0 Review of standing items: . "web site: www.planninginlondon.com" The web site is gradually building up. These minutes and future lpdf agendas will be posted on the web site. All boroughs are being asked to update their contact information for publication in 2001, including building control and background etc. subject to sponsorship. . development control statistics [Chairman] These will be published in the next quarterly edition of the journal. Decisions are still at around 62% compared with the 80% target.. UDP progress with reviews in London [Giles Dolphin, GLA] Richard Linton tabled a self explanatory schedule of the stage reached by Boroughs in their UDP reviews. In response to a question by Sarah Dixey Tony Thompson said that the legislation shows that conformity with the SDS cannot be required until the SDS is "published" i.e. adopted. . Current DoE consultation documents & pipeline [GoL] Tony Thompson said that PPG11 and PPG13 are shortly to be published as is the Urban White Paper. National Planning Forum report [Chairman] The Chairman said that the NPF Planning Users Conference on 12th June was chaired by Nicky Gavron. It was more intellectual than previously. There were presentations by Sir Stuart Lipton of CABE, Diana Kershaw on Competitive regions and Hugh Williams on relations of retailers with communities, together with Julian Smith presenting from the HBF. . Planning in London [Noel Hill, chairman advisory group/RIBA] None.

9.0 Membership & subscriptions - Hon. Secretary's report

9.1 None.

10.0 Other business 10.1 None.

Appendix 1 "4.13 Tom Ball asked how to promote the message and referred to a booklet by English Heritage called "Streets for All". He endorsed the need for more officer and member training. The document should be issued free to local planning authorities etc. There is also a need to address high-density housing, turning the corner and transport interchanges". Delete last sentence. "5.17 Tom Ball supported broadly Chris Church's approach to High Rise. He commented that in the States 500 units was considered the appropriate size for a community. 50% of the elderly wanted to be at the top and 50% on ground floor, requiring careful management". Replace with 5.17 Tom Ball referred to his experience of community housing in Detroit, where a community of 500 families was to be accommodated, at high density, and involving a mix of one, storey, three storey and a tower of 25 storeys. Through a detailed survey before any design work was done it was found that 50% of the elderly wished to be 'high up' and 50% wanted to be near the ground. Satisfaction came from proper placement. "5.18 In a combination of high and low rise the problem is who pays for the amenity and recreation. Where there are no facilities residents are driven out to other areas. He cited Churchill Gardens where the first generation were exchanging new housing for old and bad. Now it is more populated by lower income families. 50% are not English nationals. Understanding of "community" is quite different. It is most important to provide enough space within the dwelling, notably for storage. There is a lack of understanding about noise and the important need for proper sound insulation in the emphasis placed on higher densities. Ignoring these issues simply builds up more long-term problems". Replace with 5.18 One of the problems in high density developments is the lack of amenity and recreation spaces. These tend not to be provided to a sufficient amount. In the case of Churchill Gardens, Pimlico. it is found that the space is often being used by people from adjoining areas where there are little or no facilities. Since the maintenance costs for these facilities are paid for by the Churchill Gardens there is tension. Current high density proposals are not taking sufficient account of the need and demand for ground level open space, kick about areas and pitches. The people who live in high density developments know of the ensuing problems which arise out of too small dwellings, and little or no recreation areas. Sound insulation between dwellings is generally insufficient, and close proximity to dwellings leads to tension, aggression and anti-social behaviour. This is especially sensitive in current communities of different ethnic backgrounds. The level of 'community consideration' and tolerance today is not what it was fifty years ago, and I regret that these issues do not seem to be recognised by current developers and architects. Drummond Robson DR/dbm 14.9.00