Draft London Plan update

This came just one day after Jenrick published the ‘Planning for the Future’ policy paper, which set out his ambitions to overhaul the Planning System with a series of reforms to accelerate housebuilding in a bid to tackle affordability. The general tone of the Paper is that Planning has become too complicated and technology, reform, clearer policies, zonal planning and extended permitted development rights can increase community engagement, accelerate delivery and provider greater certainty for developers.

This message has clearly followed through into the response to the Mayor, with the Secretary of State attacking the Plan’s ‘layers of complexity’ making development ‘difficult unnecessarily’. The Secretary of State has considered that the Plan as a whole is  “inconsistent with the pro-development stance that we should be taking” and clearly echoes the frustrations with the Planning System set out in his policy paper. In what is a strongly worded critique, the Secretary of State directly links the under-delivery of housing during Sadiq Khan’s Mayorship with the Capital’s affordability crisis and this raises a number of questions:  to what extent will the policy directions address these issues, what impact will the letter have on the draft Plan, and when and in what form can we now expect it to be adopted?

We have sought to identify and summarise some of the key points below.

Green Belt

A key omission of the Intend to Publish draft London Plan was the commitment to the strategic Green Belt review recommended by the Planning Inspectorate. The Mayor had also refused to make changes to his Green Belt policy that would allow for release in exceptional circumstances, as allowed for in national policy. The Secretary of State’s response was surprisingly silent on a strategic Green Belt review and it looks like the political ping-pong on the issue is set to continue, with no one wanting to take responsibility for one of London’s fundamental development constraints – its restricted land supply. The Annex to the letter has directed the Mayor to amend Green Belt policy to reflect national policy. This direction is welcomed but it does fail to address the concerns raised by Savills in the Examination in Public (EIP), namely that Green Belt needs to be strategically reviewed in order to identify areas for housing and industry growth based around future infrastructure projects. It seems reasonable that a strategic Green Belt review will need to be conducted in order to inform the most sustainable strategy for any future London Plan. 

Industrial land

The draft London Plan had set a strategic target of ‘no net loss of industrial capacity’ across London, with particular boroughs identified as areas where increased capacity could be accommodated, and others where limited and managed release through co-location, intensification and relocation could help deliver new homes. The Secretary of State has directed the Mayor to remove the high hurdle of ‘no net loss’ from the draft policy and also to remove the borough categorisation. The directions still require any release of industrial land to be planned, monitored and managed, but the loosening of the policy clearly shows the Government’s belief that a more positive approach needs to be taken to redeveloping industrial land. It would seem inevitable that under this revised regime some industrial capacity will be lost in order to meet housing need, particularly in Boroughs that are planning for large scale redevelopment of industrial land such as Barking and Dagenham.

Notably, there has been no change to the approach to affordable housing on industrial sites, so where there is a loss of industrial capacity, developers will still be expected to deliver 50% affordable unless it can be demonstrated as unviable (with any shortfall subject to early and late stage reviews).

Density

The Secretary of State’s letter refers to maximising as opposed to optimising density. Optimising density is a common term in policy,  with the national policy requiring local policies to optimise the use of land for housing. The use of the term maximising in the body of the letter therefore diverges from the national policy position, and clearly indicates the Secretary of State’s personal view that more can be done to increase density in certain locations. However, this wording has not followed through to the policy directions which continue to state that ‘development must optimise site capacity’.  The Secretary of State has identified areas that could accommodate more density, including ‘gentle densification’ in low and mid density locations and high density in certain clusters such as Opportunity Areas. However this is to be taken in the context of the other housing policies, so ultimately these directions have limited bite.  The Plan retains its design led approach and the policy test is still optimisation, which could mean that London boroughs continue to challenge on the grounds of overdevelopment ambitious schemes that seek to increase the scale or mass of buildings in lower density areas, particularly on small sites.

Mix

The Secretary of State has gone slightly beyond the scope of the Planning Inspectorate’s recommendations and directed the Mayor to make changes to his housing policies that would increase the requirement to consider the need for family homes. The changes also introduce an exception for parking standards that would allow for higher levels of parking if it would support additional family housing, which is somewhat in conflict with the message to go greener and encourage sustainable modes of transport. However, it is clearly the Government’s position that increasing density should not come at the cost of a decrease in family sized homes. Ultimately, housing mix policies will need to be informed by Strategic Market Assessments at Local Plan making stage so, again, the direction may be limited in terms of its policy implications.

What Next?

By Law the Mayor cannot adopt the draft London Plan unless he satisfies the Secretary of State that he has made the modifications necessary to conform with the directions, or the directions are withdrawn. This leaves the Mayor in a position of having to make some uncomfortable decisions as if the Plan is to be adopted, it would need to be in the form recommended by the Secretary of State or in a form that the Secretary of State is satisfied has the same effect. If agreement cannot be reached on these points, then the Plan cannot be adopted.

Whilst the tone of the letter was surprising given that large parts of the Intend to Publish Plan have remained unchanged, some of the Secretary of State’s modifications have significantly altered parts of the Plan and these changes could considerably impact on housing supply.

With the Mayoral Elections suspended due to the Covid-19 outbreak there will no longer be a purdah period and this will give the Mayor more time to consider and potentially negotiate the directions. In the meantime, our view is that significant weight can be afforded to policies within the Plan that are not in dispute (e.g. Affordable Housing).

The letter sets out a clear requirement for improved future communication between Government and the GLA with regular meetings and quarterly reporting. This will inevitably result in continued and increased pressure for the Mayor to facilitate and secure  housing delivery, with the Secretary of States’ view that this has been slowed due to onerous conditions being put on estate regeneration schemes and a failure to work successfully with landowners on strategically important sites. It is also likely that the Mayor will be pushed towards an immediate review of the Plan to accommodate the gap of circa 14,000 homes per year between London’s identified need and the targets in the draft Plan.  It also seems feasible that there will be increased Secretary of State call-in activity on larger housing schemes where the Mayor is seen to be ‘slowing down’ development.