All change for London

Boris Johnson swept to power in 2008 on a platform of change, and having decided his predecessor’s
London Plan didn’t quite fit with the programme, he has delivered a replacement. So what does that actually mean, asks Chris Newbould?

One of Ken Livingstone’s much-heralded policy cornerstones was the delivery of new affordable homes in the capital. One of Boris Johnson’s first announcements was his intention to drop his predecessor’s flagship target of 50 per cent affordable housing in favour of an overall goal of 50,000 new affordable homes by 2011.

It sounds dramatic, but perhaps the reality is less so. Cynics note that Johnson intends to use the very same toolkit as his predecessor to determine affordable targets for individual developments, so if under Livingstone the toolkit advised no affordable homes, or 100 per cent affordable homes, it will
advise exactly the same now.

Johnson’s opponents will doubtless claim that his new targets are likely to remove housing from strategic thinking – a long term numerical target is much easier to put to one side for another day than a case by case percentage target. There may be some truth in this, but conversely the mayor’s supporters point out that Livingstone was only actually achieving 34 per cent anyway.

Time may tell otherwise, but the likely outcome seems to be one of relative continuity, with little actual change for developers on the ground. As the head of planning at one London property firm opines: “This is playing with semantics. It could be a bit of storm in a teacup.”

Those lucky enough to already have a home will be pleased to hear that the new plan intends to make it harder to secure planning permission for developments in domestic back gardens. GLA figures suggest that an average of 800 permissions a year involving lost garden space were granted between 2003 and 2006, around five per cent of all permissions granted. This roughly follows his party’s broader policy to clamp down on classifying residential gardens as brownfield sites. It will doubtless please both those that love and loathe Johnson to know that he became an early exemplar, albeit when forced, by removing the shed he’d erected at his Grade II-listed home without permission, and seemingly in direct contravention of his own policy.

The idea seems to make good sense on a quality of life level. After all, no one likes to wake up one morning to find an apartment block outside their bedroom window. On a practical level, however, it must be said that space in London is, to put it mildly, at something of a premium. Only time will tell how the restrictions on development may affect Johnson’s plans for more housing, and indeed more commercial development. Throw in his intention to place minimum space requirements on social housing development through the Housing Design Guide, and the options for development become even fewer. A lot seems likely to depend on how the rules are both worded and interpreted. That said, if the rules are open to interpretation, we may well find very little changing at the coal face here too.

Next in line for the mayor’s wrath come tall buildings. He’s not quite pushing for the return to thatched Tudor cottages that some members of the establishment seem to favour, which some developers had initially feared, but he’s aiming for clusters and protected view corridors – particularly around heritage sites. There will be a general assumption that stand-alone towers should not be permitted, and that local context should be put foremost. Presumably this is one victory for the outer boroughs, whose residents’ champion Johnson proclaimed himself during the mayoral campaign, and who will not now find 40-storey Stalinist monoliths springing up outside while they’re at yoga. Then again, if looking at local context before granting planning permission isn’t what the city’s planners were already doing, one does begin to wonder exactly what they’ve been up to for all those years before the change at City Hall gave them renewed purpose.

Overall, it’s probably fair to say that the regulations are not as draconian as some had expected and dreaded, but they’ll certainly have an effect. A number of existing plans are already thought to be under threat, including Ian Simpson’s dramatic southern sibling to Manchester’s existing icon, the Beetham Tower. Meanwhile, if Johnson intends to retain his status as the City’s friend, as befits a man of his position and background, he may find it hard to hold out against the provision of high-density office space for too long, especially if low density rents start pushing business to Paris or Frankfurt.

Returning to the suburbs briefly, having theoretically come to power on a wave of suburban resentment of his predecessor’s inner London fixation, what does the new plan actually offer his Home Counties-dwelling compadrés? A commission has been set up to examine the needs of outer London and, well that’s about it really. That plus a few extra parking spaces on the fringes of the city, which is hardly revolutionary given Livingstone’s car-hating reputation. There have been no major new investment announcements for outer London, and the plan itself is certainly not the key to the rebirth of the suburbs that one might have expected. The state of the economy may not have helped here, but if this is intended as a long time plan, the suburbs could justifiably feel a little disappointed.

Such economic considerations appear not to have thwarted transport plans, or at least not Crossrail’s extension. The plan includes proposals to raise around £200 million from Section 106 agreements. However, there is as yet no mention of who will pay these levies – those developers in the immediate vicinity of the extension, or developers city-wide (on the basis that the scheme will offer city-wide benefits). This argument could well rumble on till May, when it looks increasingly likely we’ll have to find out how keen Johnson is on the extension when a Tory government scrap it. Elsewhere in transport, keen cyclist Johnson has promised supplementary guidance for the provision of cycle parking in new developments, but this is actually left over from the previous plan.

Finally, in the brave new green world, no plan for London would be complete without a mention of carbon, and Johnson, in common with pretty much everyone else recently, has pledged to push for zero carbon development. To promise otherwise would be akin to admitting to eating children, but on top of the words themselves he’s promised new guidance on sustainable construction and renewable energy. The previously mentioned Housing Design Guide also touches on zero carbon themes in housing development.

It’s unclear thus far how much has really changed. Critics say Johnson’s housing targets are less ambitious than Livingstone’s or his ‘flexible’ approach to demanding renewable energy on new developments will damage the existing plans to increase renewables across the capital. Supporters disagree, and as ever the numbers can be interpreted to support either argument.

In terms of definites, so far we have a draft plan, some promised guidance and some statements of intent. The general feeling on the ground, however, seems to be that in point of fact little has changed, or perhaps it’s simply too early to tell how much has changed.

We may find ourselves next year marvelling at the sweeping changes engulfing the city, and indeed the nation if Johnson’s friends in Westminster have their way. Politicians being as politicians are though, I wouldn’t bet my prize City development on it.

MUST DO MORE ON CLIMATE AND HOUSING, BORIS TOLD
Boris Johnson’s proposed replacement London Plan lacks the required clout when it comes to climate change and providing more affordable homes in the capital, according to London Councils, and these need to be strengthened in the final version.

The organisation has broadly welcomed the proposals presented in the plan, but called for greater clarity and consistency. The measures presented to tackle climate change and to boost the numbers of affordable homes need to be strengthened. Additionally, the organisation called on the mayor to clarify to councils whether they will need to sign up to numerical targets if they want more control over the way housing is delivered in their area.

More attention also needs to be paid to areas like transport, with measures to promote more eco-friendly modes of transport such as cycling and walking. London Councils also called on the mayor to ensure his environmental policies are closely linked to his economy, aviation and transport policies.

“The London Plan is the mayor’s vision for London over the next few decades and it is imperative that his plans are crystal clear from the last outset as they affect every single person living and working in the capital,” said Councillor Chris Roberts, executive member of planning at London Councils.

“While the mayor has made many positive suggestions in the current draft, he needs to provide more clarity and consistency on a number of issues. The plan is light in detail over the provision of delivering adequate affordable housing numbers in London and this issue should be addressed in any subsequent implementation plan. We all want to prevent the problems that come with a changing climate and a shortage of affordable housing – and we need to plan for this now.”

Images © Matt Johnston Photography