MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON WEDNESDAY 4th DECEMBER 2002 AT ROYAL INSTIUTE OF BRITISH ARCHITECTS, 66 PORTLAND PLACE LONDON W1 BETWEEN 2.30 AND 5.30.

Attendance: Brian Waters, Chairman Alan Byrne: English Heritage Alastair Gaskin: Urban Catalyst Andrew Rogers: Association of Consultant Architects Caroline Green: Town and Country Planning Association David Cunningham: Kennedy Haywards David Bradley: Honorary Secretary Eric Sorensen Ian Thompson: London Borough of Wandsworth Nick Gibbons: Urban Initiatives/Ove Arup Nigel Pallace: LB Hammersmith and Fulham - ALBPO Paul Evans: London Borough of Southwark Roger Chapman: Association of London Government Simon Foxell: RIBA Stephen Robinson: RICS. GVA Grimley Stephen Robinson: RIBA London Tom Ball: London Forum Drummond Robson: RTPI, RPC. Secretary Ð Now on robplan@btconnect.com

  1. Noel Hill 1.1 The Chairman expressed the ForumÕs sadness at the loss of Noel Hill, a leading supporter of the Forum for 13 years, who had died from cancer. Brian Waters had attended a memorial service at Hampstead Parish Church on Monday which itself was well attended. Noel was active in the fields notably of planning and urban design and, while with Westminster City architects was responsible for the development of Victoria Court, the Piazza in front of Westminster Cathedral. We will miss NoelÕs energy, enthusiasm and support to the Forum. Noel was also a member of the editorial advisory panel of Planning in London, a post which now becomes vacant. The Chairman invited expressions of interest from those present in carrying on this role.

  2. Introductions and Apologies 2.1 Ian Thompson announced that he was now to be formerly replaced as the ALBPO representative on the Forum by Nigel Pallace. Nigel Pallace was welcomed in his new capacity. It was also agreed that Ian Thompson would remain as a member in his own right. 2.2 The Chairman introduced the three speakers for the principal topic: Paul Evans: Strategic Director of Regeneration at LB Southwark, David Cunningham of Kennedy Haywards, Architects for the Bermondsey Spa Development and Alastair Gaskin from the Development Company Urban Catalyst. 2.3 Apologies were received from Bill Bailey, Kelvin McDonald, Dino Patel, Gideon Amos, Giles Dolphin, Paul Finch, Richard Max and Stuart Woodward. Caroline Green represented TCPA in GideonÕs absence. 2.4 A number of other members had hoped to come but were not present. One reason for this is the concurrent announcement from the ODPMÕs office of the Planning and Compensation Bill. Also for this reason the subsidiary topic was not discussed.

  3. Principal Discussion Topic: ÒThe relationships between developers and London boroughs in the roles of client and promoters of a better built environment involving consideration of higher density and mixed use schemes.Ó Southwark 3.1 The Chairman welcomed the first discussion as exploring how planning related to design. Paul Evans was invited to open as representative of Southwark, the first London local planning authority of the year for boosting active local authorities as patrons, clients and planning authorities promoting an improved built environment and providing a role model for other authorities. 3.2 Paul Evans said that he was a civil servant in the ODPM who had been invited to try Òplanning at the front endÓ. The award he suggested was a Fred Manson award as a worthy winner and one for which he could not claim personal credit. 3.3 PE continued to say that the world is changing a bit and is being more moulded around major projects which in turn extend to a more pervasive approach to the built environment. This has been discussed with CABE and others. Regeneration policy itself is at large - a shifting ground which needs to be given ore prominence. Southwark is continuing to give re-emphasis to it as one of LondonÕs most depressed areas. This is being considered associated with the administrative changes brought about since the transfer of London Docklands responsibilities back to the borough. Economic and social change are being addressed as well as physical in the later alterations of the Unitary Development Plan, which is now only 28 pages long with the majority of pages now contained in Supplementary Planning Guidance. 3.4 Southwark owns lots of land and so has responsibilities both as a pure planning authority and a regeneration programme spending authority. This gives three way effects as plan making, controlling authority and landlord. Development control has a significant single regeneration budget. This directs the borough to act on sites Òdoing what we want to doÓ Ð playing on our terms, not on developersÕ terms. It is also a matter of chance that large areas of the borough are social housing estates. This allows the local authority to be seen as a whole. The borough also has the legislative capacity to become landowner (by compulsory purchase) offering a degree of power of intervention. The borough also operates in more reactive development control mode. PE asked whether what is being done in Southwark matches experience from the outside, notably in quality of outcomes. Urban Catalyst and Bermondsey Square

  3.5 The Chairman commented as an aside that it is still not possible to download application forms from Southwark for planning permission. He then introduced Alastair Gaskin from Urban Catalyst, developers active in several London Boroughs and notably at Bermondsey Square in partnership with the local authority. 3.6 Alastair Gaskin endorsed SouthwarkÕs award and explained that Urban Catalyst was a Company established specifically to address urban regeneration issues. Property is also changing in other ways requiring a more holistic approach to development. Urban Catalyst is concerned every bit as much with occupiers as investors. In the case of Bermondsey Square the Council identified the land for development for which Urban Catalyst is well suited to act as developers in a partnership agreement which will result in the land being ultimately transferred to the Company to manage. The site is not large but complex. It is occupied by the new Caledonian Antiques Market and is the site of the scheduled ancient monument of Bermondsey Abbey. It is also the key site at the heart of the Bermondsey area at the junction of the historic Bermondsey Street and Tower Bridge Road. There are lots of stakeholders involved including London Borough of Southwark, CABE, GLA, English heritage, market traders, local residents and residents groups. ÒThe scheme is as small as we can get itÓ to achieve a mixed use scheme economically on brownfield land. Were UC to march to its own aspirations the scheme would be significantly larger. All developers nevertheless agree to work to governmental objectives, working to their strengths with the local authority acting principally as facilitator. However local authorities are starved of resources and so should make more use of the proposals by developers as the basis of achieving successful outcomes. AG was concerned at the Òsea of local authority departmentsÓ involved which make co-ordination at times difficult and slow. There is a need for example for a Òcpo hit squadÓ as been established here to deal with such integrated aspects of the scheme. 3.7 AG said that developers now pay more attention than hitherto to the public realm of developments. BIDS in London was an initiative instigated by Ken Dytor, MD of Urban Catalyst, arising from recognition of the importance of social and environmental sustainability issues. AG also stressed the importance of quality design in ensure an integrated approach to sites and development. New funding vehicles are needed for regeneration and UC is pioneering novel methods of achieving this. More work will be needed to continue to extend these to achieve the regeneration projects of the future. Kennedy Haywards and Bermondsey Spa 3.8 The Chairman then introduced David Cunningham of Kennedy Haywards, architects, part of a mixed use team comprising developers, architects, building surveyors, management surveyors, M and E engineers and the London Borough. 3.9 David Cunningham said that the architects spotted the bid for a site in Southwark in a design led bid which successfully took matters through the selection process. Local residents were involved in open days in the formulation of a brief which was not very prescriptive. The two stage bidding process resulted in KH being the preferred architectural practice who demonstrated both the process of decanting and the mix of uses to include live work accommodation with ground floor retail space. The site is designed to encourage significant daytime activity.

  3.10 DC said that like Urban catalyst they were often required to broker between different departments but were assisted by a refreshingly open ended brief. They were assisted by a culture of Best Value. He applauded the way in which the site had been offered to the market. In reply to a query DC explained that competitors got sight of each otherÕs proposals after they had been publicised at the Open Day. He considered that feedback from officers was limited and that planning department officers could have been involved more. The property team within the Council took the principal initiative in the scheme. Discussion 3.11 Paul Evans explained that the purism of planning makes occasionally for difficulties to avoid the department having to Òappeal against itselfÓ. 3.12 The Chairman asked whether development control officers respected the scheme and where the brief was coming from in a Council sponsored project which gave them new principles to consider while still carrying out their control duties. 3.13 PE replied that they relied for their assessments on an up to date plan and its associated toolkit. He recognised the relationship between Council strategy and the local strategic partnerships. The Council was modifying its ambitions in bringing together community strategy and captive thematic issues so that policies and service aims are combined. 3.14 Tom Ball asked about the depth of the brief and whether it included the amount of accommodation, numbers and type of units, and the extent of local community involvement in its preparation. PE replied that numbers of habitable rooms/hectare etc were established from the development plan together with the broad land uses, the requirements for affordable housing and other constraints. This would not rule out some high-rise development. The brief was moved forward as a result of the open day involvement of local stakeholders who provided active local community engagement on this and other ÒdowntownÓ sites.

  3.15 PE was asked how the local authority as planning authority manifests its competence. Is it by good buildings on the ground? Also is the role of promoter emulated in its role of planning authority? PE replied that this was the wrong question. He suggested that at the level of major interventions the authority was thinking of what should be done in the first place to ensure active delivery and engagement, rather than worrying about 8 week performance. Headline schemes, he explained, need a lot of energy. 3.16 Roger Chapman asked whether there was a trickle down effect to the second tier sites. PE confirmed that he thought there was. 3.17 Drummond Robson referred to the experience he gained in local government where, in order to overcome the problems of decisions fragmented into different departments a team comprising the disciplines of planner, architect, engineer and estate surveyor were assembled in one room with the brief to make a regional town centre of Wood Green. It had its own political steering group. This succeeded in spite of some tensions with parent departmental chief officers in achieving its objective with a wide mix of new uses. He asked whether the model could be applied in Southwark. 3.18 PE explained that for major sites such as Elephant and Castle a similar model was in effect being used involving a cross-departmental and management structure. A second approach is being adopted in relation to the Aylesbury Estate where there is much less development change. Here work is undertaken by cross agency teams. In the case of Bermondsey Square and Bermondsey Spa there are virtual composite teams although not quite the one room model outlined above. Operationally there is a greater move towards area management. 3.19 The Chairman thanked the speakers and contributors to the discussion which would merge into item 4 as a related theme. 4.

  Subsidiary Topic. The Future of Planning. Impact of the Bill on Plan Making and Development. 4.1 Jeff Channing from ODPM responsible for the proposed changes was invited but had clearly to decline since the day coincided with the public announcement of the bill and its contents. Ironically this is history repeating itself since he was also unable to attend previously because the launch of the green paper on the Future of Planning had coincided too with a Forum meeting. 4.2 David Bradley asked how the model proposed in what was expected in the bill was already being met by local authorities. Paul Evans considered that changes in structure were of less importance than changes in accountability. The record of achievement over the years was already good in the field of land control and planning gain had achieved more for society than would be possible by private landowners alone. He acknowledged that there was a need to ensure that landowning requirements and s.106 requirements should not be a double penalty to the developer but should complement one another. 4.3 Ian Thompson envied SouthwarkÕs ability to exercise landlord control. The benefits of deprived areas offered more ÒjuicyÓ sites for development opportunity. Planning gain requirements should be built into individual site requirements. He considered that planning briefs have a clear implication for the value of sites, which needs to be taken into account by purchasers trying to maximise development potential. What is needed is a clear brief and an up to date UDP. 4.4 It was argued that in Southwark there is a risk of conflict in trying to achieve Òlandlord orderÓ which wins the day in a belief in consistency rather than planning for diversity. Often arguments turn on issues of overage.

  4.5 PE acknowledged there may be genuine conflicts of requirements which argue for more transparency about the actual choices being made, notably in the standards of development compared with the wider community benefits Ð for example there is huge pressure to provide for marginal social benefits which may leach away the capital base. One should try to provide the best balance between competing factors in marginal areas: it needs to be acknowledged that you cannot get as much as you might wish. 4.6 Simon Foxell invited discussion of the quality of design arising from SouthwarkÕs upfront and promotional approach to design. Developers are desperate to raise barriers to design with the aim of increasing the acceptable quantum of space, he suggested. 4.7 Ian Thompson said the circumstances were quite different for planning cases where the local authority is the landlord, rather than merely planning authority. In his experience the main issue was ensuring the developer chose the right architect. 4.8 Nigel Pallace suggested that design had not the main purpose that the authority was there for but that design skills were being rebuilt slowly within boroughs. He alluded to the Architecture and Urbanism Unit at the GLA whose purpose was to encourage better design. There is often a concern that dumbed down design succeeds on cost grounds rather than take the view that deterioration in the design has Ògone too farÓ even sometimes where the architect had not changed. 4.9 Tom Ball asked about land values. He drew a distinction between development leasehold values and the long-term growth in the value of the land. He asked who benefits at the sale of the property at cost plus fees.

  4.10 Paul Evans suggested that freehold retention by the borough is necessary for strategic reasons. He suggested that Southwark would watch who they engaged at early stages to ensure that development gain was captured as different slices at several stages rather than a Òone off takeÓ. 4.11 Stephen Robinson (RICS) reminded the Forum that there is a statutory duty to ensure Òbest considerationÓ. For example English Partnerships could otherwise give away the land for private sector housing with a consequential impact on value enabling more affordable housing. 4.12 Roger Chapman said that ALG was concerned at the present skills deficit at the local authority level. Recruitment and retention were endemic problems and it is essential that people receive the proper training to resolve huge conflicts such as high density versus community involvement. There have been sharp reactions in the leafy suburbs to increases in density for example. 4.13 Nigel Pallace advocated better data bases for model higher density schemes providing mixed use and mixed tenure etc in order to prove that higher densities work. 4.14 Paul Evans thought this a problem in the context of the dwelling mix advocated in the draft London Plan.

  4.15 Reviewing the planning authority of the year award scheme it was suggested that there may be merit in different categories of award, such as one applied specifically to design in the suburbs. The Chairman thought the discussion had been helpful and drew attention particularly to the intention of the award scheme as described on the front page of PiL. 4A The Spatial Development Strategy: Examination in Public. 4A1 The Chairman drew the ForumÕs attention to the forthcoming Examination in Public of the draft London Plan. This is as follows:

  · By 6th December: Publication of the Draft List of Matters and Participants. This was, as Roger Chapman showed, in fact on the web on 4th December.

  ·16th December. First Preliminary Meeting

  By 20th January 2003 Final List of Matters and Participants

  ·23rd January 2003. Second Preliminary Meeting

  ·10th February 2003. Closing date for written representations

  ·3rd March 2003. Commencement of EIP.

  4A2. Drummond Robson suggested writing to the Panel Secretariat identifying the major issues which had emerged from previous discussions within the Forum. These included delivery of the plan, the infrastructure timetable, affordable housing in the context of housing supply, the suburbs and policy structure of the plan (including the separation of policy, reasoned justification and supplementary planning guidance). This was agreed.

  4A3. Stephen Robinson was concerned that the SPG on affordable housing had still not been produced.

  5. Minutes of Meeting held at City Hall The Queen's Walk, SE1 2AA on 11th September 2002 5.1 Tom Ball noted that he should have been included in the list of attendees, particularly as his contribution to proceedings (relating to Athens, not Rome) was itself recorded. The minutes Ð which had been issued in draft only - were amended accordingly.

  6. Matters arising. 6.1 None.

  7. Planning in London 2003/4 yearbook: critical discussion and suggestions for next edition. 7.1 The current yearbook was welcomed. It was suggested that better coverage of each of the Boroughs with more specific detail of projects and people could be achieved in the next edition. The Chairman invited feedback to either Paul Finch, Lee Mallett or himself for this publication, which pays a royalty back to the Journal whilst allowing the Journal to impose an editorial veto if necessary. The editors of PiL act as consultant editors to the Yearbook. 8. Date of next Meeting, Topic and Venue.

8.1 It was proposed that the next meeting of the Forum should take place on Wednesday 5th March 2003 at GOL, Riverwalk House. This is two days after the EIP. The Chairman proposed that the topics should include an assessment of population forecasts for London. Concern has been expressed in several quarters at the likely under enumeration in London by the 2001 census of LondonÕs population, in some areas such as RB K and C perhaps by as much as 40%. The effects of this are of course crucial to the realism of the SDS and other planning of the Capital.

Introduction - London Planning & Development Forum - Latest issue - ePiL - Yearbook - Articles - Archive - Directory - Cartoons - Sponsorship - Contact - Subscribe

Planning in London is the journal of the London Planning & Development Forum. Published quarterly since 1992, it is only available on subscription. Like the Forum, it aims to publish the viewpoints and interests of the private and the government sectors involved with development and planning in London.

stephen jakub Site created by