We would love to know what people in london think about neighbourhood planning and what support or training they would like to help them.  Please take 5 mins to fill in this survey and pass the link to others

http://www.lscp.org.uk/npsurvey/

A full room of London’s lead councillors and borough officers attended a full days briefing on planning in London on 12 Jan.  Speakers included DCLG chief planner Steve Quartermain, head of the GLA’s London Plan team Andrew Barry Percell and chairs of both the London forum of civic and amenity Societies and Civic Voice, Michael Bach and Tony Burton.

A similar event, looking at community consultation methods in particular, will be held on 25 jan

Here are some notes from 12 Jan.

Briefing; Future of Planning in London

12 Jan 2010

Notes from the day

Around 75 London councillors, senior borough officers and community group representatives attended.

Speakers included Steve Quartermain, Chief Planner at DCLG, Andrew Barry-Purcell head of London Plan team at the GLA, Nick Taylor, head of north region at HCA, George Gardiner of Gardiner Stewart architects, John Walker of the Planning Officers Soc, Michael Gallimore of Hogan Lovells, Michael Bach of the London forum of civic and amenity Societies and Tony Burton of Civic Voice.

There follows a short summary of points made by speakers followed by a review of questions asked by delegates.

1. Localism Bill includes a lot more than planning reforms, but the planning system is seen as a key part of the political agenda and a way of taking forward Big Society ideas quickly.

2. The point was made that local communities should look after themselves and not rely on the council for everything.  Devolution should be about sharing the burden of choice not about shifting decision making from one group to another.  The local authority and democratically elected councillors will still be the decision maker.

3. The Bill includes a range of proposed changes to the planning system but over it is not as radical  as many people thought probably before it was published, in particular:

•  
  • The planning system as we know it remains in place.  The 2004 Act stays and the ‘plan led’ approach has not been changed.
  • So local plans and in London the London Plan (which is not an RSS but a Regional Spatial Plan under different legislation) remain and should still be produced.  This includes Core Strategies, Area Action Plans, SPD etc. London has pretty good coverage of LDFs now, with lots more docs in the pipe line.  The message was to ‘crack on’ with them.
  • Annual Monitoring Return requirements are removed, well in terms of the SoS needing to see them anyway – they still need to be posted on council websites.
  • Changes to enforcement procedures seem to be welcomed by most.  They will speed up action and prevent some ‘cheeky practices’.

4. Neighbourhood planning was discussed by all speakers.  It seems to be the part of the Bill that is causing most interest, uncertainty, concern and scepticism. 2 main elements where discussed, Neighbourhood Development Plans NDPs and Neighbourhood Development Orders (NDOs) Some comments made included:

•  
  • Not all communities and neighbourhoods need to have a NDP.  In London there are 624 wards (the size of area most seem to think might emerge as an average for NDPs).  If just 25% end up with plans that’s over 150, quite a lot to do.
  • NDPs will be part of the Development Plan and changes are proposed in the Bill to the 2004 Planning Act about decision making to ensure NDPs are a ‘material consideration’.
  • At the moment there is some ‘new money’ for the admin side of vanguard NDPs, but DCLG consider that enough money has been included in settlements for authorities for the next 5 years to resource neighbourhood planning.  Other speakers did not agree that there will be enough money, time, skills and experience around within communities and boroughs to successfully deliver the ideas.
  • Not all NDPs or parts of a NDP area need to have a NDO.  Some speakers seemed quite sceptical that there would be many NDOs in London and could not see why communities would want them.  London has a relatively pro development policy environment – not like rural areas, and there is scepticism as to why a borough or community would want to give up planning control when developments are economically viable and generally allowable if appropriate.
  • Defining neighbourhoods and communities is a really big issue.  This might be relatively easy in rural towns and villages but the overlapping of communities of interest in terms of geographical coverage, but the sometimes illogical placement of existing boundaries between existing area designations such as wards and boroughs etc all make it difficult in London.  Advice was given that flexibility, pragmatism, creativity and partnership working between boroughs and groups would be needed. But the practical questions remain pretty unanswered at the moment and this could prevent take up in London.  Leeds apparently already have 8 neighbourhood plans up and running and some boroughs also already have neighbourhood structures that could work well under the bill proposals.  More learning from good existing examples could be helpful.
  • The Govt want NDPs to promote development – they say that restrictive, negative plans will not be acceptable because they will not be in general conformity with the Development Plan (National Planning Framework, London Plan and strategic policies from  LDF for the area).  BUT, if NDPs are to grow from local aspirations and only ‘general conformity’ is required some speakers expressed the view that negative NPDs, some maybe growing from conservation area statements, will still come forward. Others felt that they provided an opportunity to fine tune London plan and LDF policies to reflect local issues. 
  • The NDP system is meant to be flexible.  Plans could just set out a vision, and or policies, plan, funding/management strategies, fasing ideas, or outline or full planning permission through NDOs.
  • The role of the borough in stewarding the NPD process was discussed.  It sounds like they will have a very important and challenging role in terms of deciding on appropriate neighbourhood areas, who can represent communities and bring forward an NPD etc.  There are lots of yet to be answered questions about how this might work, in particularly how they will priorities their time and decide which forums/draft NDPs to recognise and support.

5. Speakers gave a short run through on the London Plan, social housing and viability issues.  Some of the main issues raised  were:

•  
  • London Plan (LP) progressing towards publication in autumn or winter 20011 – slightly ahead of schedule at the moment.
  • 960 responses received to draft LP – lots of interest.
  • Plan should become a ‘Resource for Localism’.  It should provide vital information and a strategic steer to inform the development of borough and neighbourhood plans and decisions.
  • One of the most innovative new policy areas is Lifetime Neighbourhoods, which could help to support the way NDPs and borough plans help manage established communities and neighbourhoods to provide facilities and environments for all.
  • There will be new LP SPG, in particular one on shaping neighbourhoods and localities.  This could sit very well with NDPs helping to take forward approaches such as characterisation and understanding local distinctiveness.
  • The draft LP has strong policies on design and the built environment – along with many others of course.  But these ones could also support NDPs.
  • Housing targets will be revised to become ‘something else’ but it is not clear yet what that might be.
  • Funding for affordable homes has reduced by about half this year (nationally).
  • Old verses new social housing models: old, rents 40-50% of market rate, new up to 80%. Old, tenancies secure for life, new fixed term, reviewable, old, £80k subsidy per unit, new this is included in wider subsidy, old, more focus on new build, new more focus on asset management of existing stock such as bring voids (about 4% of stock) back into use at higher rents.
  • Bidding system for HCA type subsidy changing – bidders need to show where other match funding is coming from such as Sec 106 money which adds up to about 50% of funds in London. So v important to talk to developers.
  • Issue about estates renewal projects in London.  If tenants would be charged higher rents when they move back will there be any support for such programmes?
  • In terms of developer viability it is worth remembering that they want to turn money around quickly so smaller returns received faster are more attractive than tying up and risking large amounts of capital up for a long time.  So schemes that offer different types of homes that can be built out at different times on a site, not all in large blocks of flats, can be more viable. 
  • London has found new development models for housing many times over the centuries – it needs to find another one now.  This could be mixed typology sites to reduce risk.
  • Savings through things like combined heat and power worth considering.
  • London block sizes are traditional about the size that takes 5 mins to walk around.  But in Europe blocks are a bit bigger, maybe 6 to 7 mins walk – and this can make them more viable.

6. Other comments made by speakers included:

•  
  • Not all communities are NIMBY – they care very much about local services, facilities and the quality of the environment.
  • People in civic societies are the most numerous participants in the planning system.
  • Good that councillors not seen to have ‘closed minds’ because of conversations, involvement and comments made prior to their role in reaching a planning decision.
  • Requirements that authorities must hold a referendum on an issue if 5% of population ask for it is too low.  It can be easy to get enough people to sign a petition but they may not really care about the issue.  5% could lead to a large number of unhelpful, expensive and delaying referendums and voter fatigue.
  • It would be such a shame if we got so caught up in the detail of legislation that we forgot the ideas behind the Bill.
  • Assets of Community Value idea.  The community right to bid and buy assets may not protect the use as changes of use may not need permission. The purchasing ‘community’ may not want the use others find vital (eg a pub can become a language school without permission).
  • Duty to Co-operate – what does that mean?  Maybe just have a meeting?  Needs more detail.
  • Unclear the role of AMRs in the future – DCLG say they are going, but they are staying if they need to go on council websites. Can they include whatever the council wants now?
  • CIL – could be a real incentive for development but at the moment not enough detail on how it would work.
  • Changes to enforcement procedures good – but the fines too low – £2500 fine in London for a breach – not nearly high enough
  • Mayoral Development Corporation. Idea this will deal with Olympics but they could be created anywhere in London and take local plannign powers for the area.
  • Community right to Build (and NDOs) could be manipulated by developers – paying for support of residents?
  • The role of the emerging national policy framework will be important.  If it is stripped back too far it could just state the blindingly obvious and not be useful.
  • It is worth remembering the proposed requirement for developers to ‘collaborate’ with the local community on the design of a scheme – not sure what this might mean at the moment.

 Questions asked at the briefing

• Referendums – will businesses and other non resident users of an area have a say.  They do now through consultation on plans and planning applications so will the system disenfranchise them? Answer – DCLG thinking about this
• Given the confusion over RSSs over the last few months what faith can planners and councillors have that the new system will work?  Answer – there are good practice examples already like Leeds and Burgess Hill – it can work.
• There is a problem in one part of London with applications for loft conversions to accommodate larger families being turned down by the local authority – would a NDP and NDO help? Answer – yes
• In another London borough a neighbourhood system is already in use – could this be adapted to suit NDPs?  Answer – yes
• Is there a danger that NDPs will be controlled and driven by NIMBY element of local communities?  Answer – yes that is a concern, but hopefully others will get involved when they see it could benefit them and their input could have results.
• London already has its own plan, strategy and visions. Maybe we don’t need more of these at local level, but we need a way to elaborate them to manage change and ensure good mix of uses, facilities, types of home, good public realm etc at local level.  So London situation rather particular? Answer – point taken.
• If a NDP comes forward and it does not include development proposals/support can the borough refuse to support it?  Answer – The idea is that NDPs should propose development. Boroughs will need to do a validation check to sort this out  (note from author – more guidance on this would be useful)
• If my area came up with a NIMBY NDP it would be voted through in a referendum – how can validation checks stop this happening? Answer – politicians say you should trust people, this will not happen.
• How can NDPs that span borough boundaries work?  Answer, through co-operation between boroughs (duty to co-operate) who should maybe support and adopt the NDP together.
• How will NPs be funded?  Answer – Govt considers enough funding provided through current grants and settlements.  Extra money available for vanguard schemes.
• Is the Bill giving local authorities the ‘responsibility to disappoint their residents’? As it could encourage NDPs which ask for unrealistic and undeliverable things – especially in London where the Mayor may take some CIL money etc.  Answer – it is up to boroughs to ensure plans are appropriate.
• With changes to the London Plan, will the Mayor take a stronger line with boroughs re housing targets?  Answer – Mayor wants targets to be locally owned. 
• We have a large house builder interested in our area.  How do we get them to the pre app table?  Answer – surprised they don’t want to be there anyway, but maybe provide them with a development process program to follow saying what will happen/be decided when.
• How much weight will be applied to London Plan verses borough plans verses NDPs? Answer – such issues will be resolved through experience of the vanguard plans.
• How many NDPs and NDOs might there be in London? Answer – maybe some in richer neighbourhoods where residents pay for them or do them themselves and they relate mainly to conservation issues.  Also could be some in areas where developers see them as worthwhile and take the lead or pay for their development.  But they will not happen in most places. Especially as it looks like there will not be enough help and resources available.
• On consultation/referendum – how do you pick the area? Answer – maybe by ward or adjacent wards? More guidance will be provided.
• Does this whole thing diminish the role of boroughs? Answer – maybe – it will depend on the detail.  But they still have a vital role.
• How far can the general power of competence for boroughs go? Answer – we will see, but generally it could allow boroughs to do a significant number of things without fear of challenge.
• Do the proposals play to amenity societies? Answer – yes – many proposals which are opposed by communities but have been granted permission may not have received permission under the new system.
• Do you see Design Review as a useful way of embedding impartial and objective consideration of proposals and quality check  into the new system? Answer – maybe, if it does not add time and considers developer viability.
• Who will represent the inarticulate, travellers, homeless within neighbourhood forums? Answer – civic societies try to include these groups and represent their views.

NB – comments, questions and answers above have not been attributed to any particular person or speaker.  UDL can also not guarantee the accuracy of notes, they offer a summary of issues raised only.