Planning in London

MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD AT ENVIRONMENT AGENCY, MILLBANK TOWER 21ST MARCH 2001.

Attendance: Brian Waters : Chairman Martin Simmons : GLA Head of Strategy Group Tim Wacher : RICS - Greater London Group Brian Salmon: The Berkeley Group PLC Les Robinson: BWCP Mike Jordan: London Borough of Camden Michael Edwards: University College Stephen Wilkinson: Audit Commission Noel Hill : RIBA London Region Tony Bull: Urban Catalyst Tom Ball: London Forum of Amenity and Civic Societies Ian Thompson : ALBPO Hugh Howes: Environment Agency Anna Burns: Environment Agency Graham Hutchings: Cricklewood Forum Giles Atkinson: Housebuilders Federation Simon Foxell: RIBA London Region Roger Chapman: Association of London Government Lee Searles: Association of London Government Sarah Phillips for Nicholas Taylor: RICS Drummond Robson: RTPI/RPC 1.0 Introductions and Apologies 1.1 Stephen Wilkinson: Audit Commission replaces Andrew Templeman. Apologies were received from David Bradley the Honorary Secretary, Gerry Deighton, and Tony Thompson.

2.0 Discussion Topic 1. The Environment Agency: Climate Change, Planning for the Future (including flood control and development): Guest Speaker: Doug Mills - Environment Agency 2.1 The Chairman introduced Doug Mils from the Environment Agency who said he would be examining development and flood risk in London. The topic is associated with the revised draft PPG 25 issued on 6th February 2001. He talked using overhead projection and supplied notes subsequent to the meeting which are incorporated in this minute. 2.2 PPG 25 seeks views of consultees in particular on (iii) A clear statement that building in functional flood plains, where excess water flows and is held at times of flood, should be wholly exceptional - and limited to essential infrastructure that has to be there (paragraph 23). (iv) A stronger emphasis on planning in relation to river catchments at all stages in the plan-making process (paragraphs 43,48) (v) Encouragement to local planning authorities to make flood-risk information available to prospective developers and owners of property making planning searches (paragraph 59). 2.3 The present EA policy and practice for the protection of floodplains derives from an National Rivers Authority document of 1997 which put forward the fundamental principle that there should be no increase in the numbers of people at risk from flooding. Also development should not take place which prejudices possible works to reduce flood risk causing unacceptable detriment to the environment. Further, the natural floodplain should be rotected and restored. 2.4 PPG 25 paragraph 6 says that development should be opposed unless satisfactory measures can be undertaken by the developer to compensate for flood plain flow and storage capacity - (the "level for level" principle. Development on stilts would be opposed since stilts may block water flows and the condition on planning permission is not properly enforced. Local flood plain policies will need to be reviewed in the light of this guidance.

2.5 Flooding at Easter 1998 has led to the current consultation review of an earlier circular 30/92. This has been reinforced by the autumn floods in 2000. Three principles were adopted: (i) the scheme needs to be comprehensive (ii) the scheme should "have clout" (iii) some flood plain development is always going to take place. 2.6 In view of this an explicit risk based sequential test is required to identify sites at lower risk based on MAFF and EA minimal assessment with local authorities continuing to control development. 2.7 The policy guidance proposes a revised sequential test for site selection based on where future settlement should go, designed to steer development away from floodplain areas. First brownfield having precedence over greenfield, second the 100 year flood risk and assessed % indications of flood risk and third that reuse of industrial land should be prevented. This policy will for example lead to a change in policy in Runnymede which at present has no sequential priority. 2.8 In Wokingham the Council and residents have been asking "why are you not intervening in our patch?" 2.9 There has been reference to "functional" flood plains, a notion not acceptable to The Environment Agency which would mean that flood defences are protected in York, not London. Tidal defences in London will not offer protection beyond

210. Indicative flood plain maps have now been produced for the country as a whole based on current information on flood risk and are widely available on the Internet using search forms. These have been received very sceptically by some, notably Sir Peter Hall, as being crudely based. (They have been derived from Landranger mapping). 2.10 It is however important to "get ahead of the game" and more specific targetting of areas will be taking place from April 2001 to influence development plan making in particular. 2.11 Other initiatives planned include catchment flood management plans to be piloted in 2001 (affecting in particular properties downstream). More detailed modelling of historical floodplains is continuing. 2.12 Doug Mills believes that the Agency should promote the flood risk maps it feels it is most able to defend at public local inquiry and appeal. They should be treated as a seive with the presumption that in risk areas development should be precluded and outside should be allowed. 2.13 Developers should fund the provision and future maintenance of flood investigations and defence works required. 2.14 The principle underlying Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) is that all development affects flood risk and that therefore there is the need for source control. This may take the form of balancing ponds, use of reed beds to clean up water etc.

2.15 Peak flows in the Thames and Severn River catchments will change in the forseeable future. There is debate whether flood relief will protect against the 50 or 100 year flood. Also climate change is currently the subject of intense investigation. For this reason current guidance is being drafted with a view to revision within three years. 2.16 Tidal Defences and the Control of Flood Plain Development. River walls in Westminster burst in the 1920's with severe consequences. The 1953 flood also resulted in the river embankment giving way in the Thames Estuary, notably at Canvey Island with consequential loss of life. This led to the GLC's tidal defence system. Extensive parts of the Thames Valley would be at risk if the barrier were not there. 2.17 The Thames Region (downstream of Teddington) has 165 km of flood defences, 183 km2 of land protected from flooding and 800,000 people at risk. They are designed to protect against the 1 in a thousand year flood to 2030. Thames Barrier and associated defences protect between ?20 and ?200 billion of property. There are 26 Underground stations at risk. 2.18 The barrier was closed on 5 successive occasions in 199-2000 and is estimated to need to be closed 300 times a year by 2100. Existing Barrier could be modified to extend its life and maintain 1 in 1000 protection to 2100. This would entail "over-rotation" of the gates beyond their current closed position to raise defence levels by additional 1.3m. Beyond 2100 only solution may be another, higher Barrier further down the Estuary. Downstream defences may also have to be modified to ensure increased defence level maintained at an estimated cost of ?1000 million over next 40 years. 2.19 Climate change is resulting in an annual sea level rise of between 4 and 5 millimetres. To this must be added a further 1-2 millimetres a year resulting from the tilting downwards of the tectonic plate of SE Britain. Other added factoring suggests that one should plan for a total rise in sea level of 6-10 millimetres a year. Current UK climate Impacts Programme suggest an estimated rise in sea level of 410 mm in SE England. UK Climate Impacts Programme will publish revised climate change scenarios in 2002 - to include more on extreme-weather events and greater regional detail.

2.20 Annual rainfall expected to increase by up to 10% by 2050, with shift in seasonal rainfall patterns - winters an autumn likely to become 20% wetter over the whole of the UK. Initial research suggests that peak flows in Thames and Severn catchments could increase by up to 20% for a given return period within 50 years. A 3 year review will enable PPG25's implementation to be assessed and latest information on climate change to be incorporated. 2.21 London groundwater changes are also affecting the pattern. 2.22 Tidal flow and climate changes need better management, more precision in understanding and responding to uncertainty in physical processes and more attention to soft engineering solutions. 2.23 Future Strategy will investigate flood warning & emergency response, potential for realignment of river defences, biodiversity and improvement of habitats, operating rules for Thames and other Barriers and take an integrated view of the whole Estuary. Researching the past will also be an important part of the study - archaeology conforms rising tides over the centuries. 2.24 It is clear that, attractive though the site was to its roman founders, the choice of location for London may prove to be far from "sustainable" in terms of flood defence. London's present situation in relation to climate change is far from sustainable. There is also more to climate change than flooding, for example concern over water resources and their rate of consumption. A case in point is that a major new reservoir is needed for Oxford.

2.25 The Chairman thanked Doug Mills for his presentation and opened the meeting for discussion. 2.26 Tony Bull asked what was happening to the level of London's water table. DM explained that ground water is rising by up to 2m a year. Ground water is now recovering from intense sand and gravel extraction. The fountains in Trafalgar Square are again artesian. Thames Water and the EA are now looking to reuse ground water (which is non potable), such as for the Tower of London Moat. The impact of structures is leading to more genera rising of ground water with consequential flooding. 2.27 Hugh Howes elaborated saying that ground water was now causing foundation problems and flooding of the Underground which has to be pumped but it is not enough to be worthwhile to use for other purposes. 2.28 Following a period of drought in which the water table fell substantially and scarp slopes were dry springs are now re-emerging. 2.29 Tom Ball sought clarification about the theoretical compared with a ctual levels of flood risk. Is there now a greater risk of a 1 in 100 year flood or not? In reply DM said that the indicative flood maps were used as a first filter alerting people to flood risk. They were not yet highly accurate to produce detailed contours with certainty. The present simplistic model is now being refined.

2.30 Tim Wacher wondered what effects the changes would have on London's SDS housing targets, particularly in the Thames Gateway. He understood that the Agency was concerned about Crossrail below the barrier. DM said that EA has been advising GLA to look at sites with a view to enhancing flood defences since current defences will become progressively less effective. The GLA teams have been provided with maps showing risk areas. 2.31 Michael Edwards asked about the implications for insurance and greater lending difficulties, wondering whether this is alarmist. DM confirmed that insurers were using the indicative flood maps as an influence on insurance premiums. 2.32 Drummond Robson asked how this might affect in particular major transport investment decisions which have very long lead times. Martin Simmons confirmed that this and housing allocations were areas where the SDS would need to be kept under review as more detailed information became available. It would not be enough simply to respond to UDPs as they came along. 2.33 The Chairman summed up by acknowledging that global warming and flood risk were now real issues for the London Region which need to be considered and that the release of housing land in the SE could be prejudiced by the emerging research. He thanked EA as hosts and Doug Mills as speaker.

3.0 Minutes of Meeting held on Wednesday 6th December at 2.30 at Government Office for London, Riverwalk House, 157-161 Millbank, London SW1P 4RR 3.1 These were accepted. There were no matters arising from them.

4.0 Discussion Topic 3. Review of Best Value in the Light of the First report on Development Control from the Audit Commission . Guest Speakers: Stephen Wilkinson - Audit Commission, Mike Jordan Acting Assistant Director, London Borough of Camden. 4.1 The Chairman explained that the Forum supported the principle of Best Value (especially in development control and development more widely) with the mission of maintaining a balance between public and private sectors. In other words how best value is perceived by and helps applicants as well as the local authority. He introduced the speakers. 4.2 Stephen Wilkinson said that the Local Government Act 1999 had introduced Best Value to encourage continuous service improvement by local authorities. The tests include 4 C's : Compare, Challenge, Compete and Consult. The Inspectors examine the level of service to the public and private sectors that the authority provides, identify deficiencies in service levels and produce reviews of local authority performance on the basis of what people using the services perceive. There are simple checks of standards such as finding out whether the telephone is answered as quickly as the local authority claim (e.g. within five rings). There are also more searching questions of how good the service is - are the aims clear and challenging? Is the rationale justified? Has a particular need and a particular service been properly identified? Also does the Council meet its stated aims and in fact deliver what it claims? There is also benchmarking tests to see how one authority compares with another in say Inner or Outer London, regionally or nationally. The aim is to be in the upper quartile. There is particular focus on whether the service has improved or will improve - how good is the best value review? How good is the improvement plan and are there the resources and capacity to improve? 4.3 Mike Jordan said that Camden had been selected as a "year zero" pilot authority. The planning service was the first to be considered to see "how it would come out at the other end". The aim is to become a two star (or good) service. 4.4 The Chairman queried the basis of the Best Value regime since authorities start from different positions. One authority may already have high standards wit little room for further improvement.

4.5 SW acknowledged this difficulty. People approach planning from diametrically opposed positions - whether in support or opposed to some development. There are preservation and national interests to consider. It is much easier to measure improvement in refuse collection. A simple test is "Did people get their way". This said on balance it is a good thing to stimulate services. 4.6 The Chairman referred to a recent AJ article ridiculing the best value system and a perennial complaint that officers did not respond. 4.7 SW defended the scheme saying it forces everyone to address what is being done and how good it is. It is also valuable as an independent validator. There are strenuous efforts made to assess with stakeholders what is actually happening on the ground. 4.8 MJ said that it puts a further burden on local authorities who have to respond to the best Value assessment in addition to normal work and resources have to be diverted to it. The day to day service will drop while the investigation is going on. Best value is unfocussed with different questions and different priorities applying in different authorities. The urge for quicker decisions may be at the expense of the quality of the decision. Local authorities may have to contend with mediocre applications and have to spend time doing other people's job for them. 4.9 Michael Edwards commented that it should enable people to offset better decisions against timescale. Will the process allow better decisions to be taken? Best value promotes a debate about the cheapest and fastest possible service, though not necessarily about the quality of outputs and outcomes.

4.10 MJ explained that there is a clear cascade in the planning process from UDP formulation to development control service delivery and the process needs to be seen in this context. 4.11 An example was given by SW of a focus group consisting of local users, local people, disability, CAAC, and local developers. 8 people came and the conclusion they drew was that quality had improved after the last three years. 4.12 There are no absolute scales of measurement, simply scoring techniques. 4.13 There is concern in how to deal objectively wit the interface between professional services and subjective decisions by politicians: notably inconstancies between recommendations and overturned recommendations. MJ said the latter represents about 2% of decisions in any one year. 4.14 SW said much depended on the level of trust, quality of delegates arguments and members having confidence. Probity is an issue and there is a need to train local authority members.

4.15 MJ did not think that remedies to better local authority service would come from best value. The issue is more of resources since there is an infinite latent demand for planning services. 4.16 Ian Thompson asked several questions: whether Development Control is a very narrow subject area for Inspectors to consider? Is there a difference between seeing and believing - talking about the process may not be enough? (There is talk about the process which consists of a preliminary meeting following initial notice, a document is taken from the authority. There is a pre meeting and feedback. He asked whether the Audit Commission was too stretched and not coping and not sticking to its own rules. He also wanted to know if the Audit Commission's appearance on the scene will change things. Is the Audit Commission seeking a step change by local authorities since it is unlikely that this can be achieved. 4.17 SW agreed that the remit needs to be more cross cutting looking at wider services - e.g. forward planning, implementation and valuation to give a broader interpretation of service. Local authorities should be encouraged to provide wider service reviews. He thought that outside London it was difficult to add value because of limited AC funding. 4.18 In response to the charge of being overstretched SW said that this is a new national initiative. Here are now 100 staff up and runnng but the process is new for everyone, there are pilots in every service area. The enormity of the task has taken everyone by surprise. He conceded that programmes have slipped but that reviews were closely examined and subject to internal reviews. The aim has been to produce a review within 2 weeks. The process should improve over time. 4.19 SW considered step changes compared with continuous subtle improvement and said that the scoring was at the level of failing, good, excellent etc. and that an intention is to celebrate success.

4.20 At present there are 60 reports across the country. At this rate it will be decades before the process is repeated. 4.21 Camden is spending more than it was 10 years ago in planning . MJ said that Camden now had the second highest expenditure per head of any London Authority. He wondered whether this was good or bad. The interrelationships between policy creation and implementation need consideration and care taken about their assumed boundaries. 4.22 SW said that a paper is in preparation to explore whether or how the process does in fact improve the world. 4.23 Mike Edwards compared the principles with the high costs of academic reviews. In practice Camden is slow on UDPs (only having just adopted its plan) and good on development control which suggests assessment is difficult.

5.0 Presentation by Lee Searles, Policy Officer, LGA on Planning Users' Concordat 5.1 Lee Searles explained that there was a broad dialogue going on between government and local authorities under the plan led system. There is concern that there are not enough approved plans. The difficulties arise from the many influences on planmaking and the large numbers of statistics requiring clear interpretation. There are also concerns about the speed of planmaking and the efficiency and quality of decision making. The Concordat is in response to this situation. It is on the web (www.lga.gov.uk) for downloading. 5.2 If you have a plan led system there is no excuse for not having a plan. Development control needs to be more robust in taking decisions. 5.3 Following the departure of Sam Richards from LGA activity has been more focussed on resources and management for planning which is considered a cut back service. The independence of local authorities is valued but they need more resources to deliver planning decisions more quickly and efficiently. 5.4 The Concordat attempts to adjust between business, local authority and voluntary sectors. It builds on a growing body of work on best practice by the Planning Officer's Society, recent DETR studies, new local plan tools, reform of local plans under PPG12, more focussed neighbourhood level of planning and greater use of non-statutory planning guidance.

5.5 The main focus is on applications and process. 5.6 The Concordat is broad brush. It offers a series of principles and signposts. 7-8,000 were produced to get greater ownership by others such as the British Property Federation and NGOs, research groups and local authorities. It was published in July 2000. Take up has been slow. Only 70 authorities have adopted it. A survey has been sent both to authorities who have adopted it and who have not. Co-operation is also sought from Chambers of Commerce, National Associations etc. 5.7 The Chairman said it was helpful to discuss now that it had been around for a while. 5.8 Ian Thompson said that Wandsworth had adopted it although much of its content was "motherhood and apple pie". Reactions had been more inertia than any adverse opinion to it. 5.9 LS said that there is concern that section 106 agreements are seen by the auditor to be a tax gathering exercise which they are not. The rues of circular 1/97 are clear that they should be related to the development and transparent. The chairman suggested that they were often introduced at a late stage as a way of mugging the developer. There is often no reason why the detail should not be agreed to by the committee, rather than give officers scope to negotiate widely.

5.10 Simon Foxell noted that no designer was mentioned in the concordat which is surprising given the contribution of architects to most applications. Although the various clients are there it is still necessary for the architect to sel their own designs to the client. The concordat should be with planning officers and the design community. 5.11 Private sector should be consulted as well as public. 5.12 Brian Salmon asked whether there was any geographical relationship in take up of the concordat. LS said there were more people in the south of England than the north. 5.13 Drummond Robson said that pre application discussions on key issues to be addressed were often declined by local authorities If they were held they would often save much time later. 5.14 The Chairman said there was a need for development control feedback. The contrast between discontent with planning and happiness with building control is striking. (It was suggested that this is probably because many planning decisions are subjective and consultative).

5.15 Building control works on the basis of deemed approval if the deadline has passed for a return by the building control authority and there is a policy of open competition so that the architect may choose the local authority wit which to work in order to build up a relationship with building controlers who have a mandate to go anywhere in the country. 5.16 The LGA s also thinking about the concordat in the context of recent Human Rights legislation.

6.0 Date of next Meeting and Venue 6.1 The GLA had invited LPDF to the next meeting on 6th June 2001at room AG 604 at Romney House, particularly to consider the Proposals Document being put forward for the SDS in late April. Martin Simmons suggested that this should be subject to Nicky Gavron's or the new Director of Policy and Partnerships Geoff. Jacobs from DETR. for their availability. He would advise the Secretary accordingly. The draft document would be subject to about 10 weeks for engagement before a full draft strategy is produced later in the year. 6.2 It was also agreed to invite Paul Finch, Deputy Chairman of CABE, to discuss Tall Buildings. 6.3 Simon Foxell said that Design for a Greater London was now some 6 weeks away from publication.

7.0 Review of standing items: . "web site: www.planninginlondon.com" and launch of ePiL. The chairman drew attention to this and its features and asked again for lists of email addresses of Forum members for its circulation. . GLA planning report and development control statistics. Nothing to add. . UDP progress with reviews in London. Giles Dolphin is currently away. Richard Linton had produced a plan for inserting into PiL. Current DoE consultation documents & pipeline [GOL]. National Planning Forum report: They have not met. Planning in London: April issue due out shortly.

8.0 Membership & subscriptions - Hon. Secretary's report held over until next time. UDAL under Mark Whitby's Presidency and the City of London lawyers are considering membership. The City Architecture Forum [Michael Cassidy was founder chairman] would like to join LP&D Forum. No other business.

MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD AT ENVIRONMENT AGENCY, MILLBANK TOWER 21ST MARCH 2001.