The London Plan working group meeting at the Bartlett
School on Wednesday 4th January 2006 at 7-9 pm.
AGENDA
1. Housing revisions to the London Plan - what responses
should we make?
Report to follow.
2. London Plan Review - see attached schedule from the GLA.
Early
intervention needed to influence process.
3. Educational programme: Planning issues at the grass-roots.
Proposal to
be tabled at the meeting.
Venue: Room 411, Wates House, Bartlett School, University
College London, 22
Gordon Street, WC1H 0QB. It's very close to Euston and
Euston Square tubes.
Notes of the London Plan Working Group
4 January 06
7pm at Bartlett School
download word document
or read below
Present
Bal Khela, Carolyn Smith, Klairy Roupakia, Les Levidow,
Mark Treasure, Michael Edwards, Peter Eversden, Richard
Lee, Sofia Roupakia, Teresa Hoskyns, Miraj Ahmed.
Revisions to the 2004 London Plan,
covering housing, waste and minerals.
The following points are a first listing of comments
and objections, which could be made to the draft housing
revisions. We have no comments on minerals or waste
(yet).
Richard circulates a one-page paper on
comments. (attached as appendix 1). The new Borough
targets are changed from the original plan, based on
the housing capacity study.
The mayor's proposed revisions on housing
are seriously wrong/flawed at a number of levels and
we wish to speak on these weaknesses, and to propose
alternatives, at the Examination in Public in June 2006.
The revisions are technically weak
in their own terms, principally:
The revised annual output targets for
new dwellings appear to be changed in response to data
from the Housing Capacity Study, but not in response
to any recent assessments of need. This is particularly
alarming in respect of those boroughs where targets
have been reduced without any evidence that needs have
been reduced.
The revisions appear to pay no attention
to the Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on housing
which must have an important bearing, especially on
standards of space, play and open space and wider infrastructure.
The revisions focus on section nn of the
Plan only, but in fact sections 2, 3b and 4b3 need to
be revised both for consistency and to secure (standards?)
The considerations governing need for
open-market housing are radically distinct from those
governing the need for 'affordable' and especially social-rented
housing and expressing affordable housing in percentage
terms is therefore a distraction. Targets for affordable
and for social-rented housing should be expressed in
numerical terms (and below we argue that they should
be expressed in bedrooms or in square metres).
The scope of the revision is too narrow.
In particular:
The need for social rented housing must depend crucially
on the assumptions made about losses from the existing
social rented stock through privatisation, notably right-to-buy
sales. Data on these sales should be included in the
'evidence base' for the new targets if the latter are
to be meaningful, and the forecasting assumptions must
be explicit. Otherwise London could be failing to add
to the stock at the required pace – or indeed at
all.
A dimension is omitted completely: land
for traveller residence. This has always been a weak
area in planning and the pressures from the Olympic
developments appear to be worsening theplight of travellers.
At a more fundamental level the review
also fails, principally because:
It fails to deal with the central fact that the present
implementation mechanism upon which the plan relies
– securing land for social housing through Section
106 agreements and money for construction through a
mixture of that instrument, RSL resources and Housing
Corporation grant – is failing to deliver.Discussion
centred on what our role should be and whether we should
focus on implementing/influencing the plan or challenging
it or presenting alternatives? For those wishing to
influence the plan, there are many levels at which the
proposed housing revisions should be challenged including
the following:
1. Why haven't good targets been met?
2. How could that be improved?
3. Scope of the question far too narrow.
4. This group could be contributing to a better debate
and decision process...
5. Must be rival views of 'sustainability'
6. And the SPG on housing also requires sections 2 and
3a (which could really make the difference) to be amended.
The amendments should have been revised to take account
of the changes needed. 4b3 needs
New targets relate to the capacity study;
meanwhile another officer was doing the SPG and the
needs study is disregarded too.
Caroline says critique of the Plan is
crucial, but not just on the figures. Underpinning assumptions
are wrong, i.e. financial logic in housing, how Local
Authorities use their powers and how travellers or other
communities are being affected i.e. Olympic displacement
proposed to site adjoining Barking sewage works.
What is our role on the revisions?
Scope
Strategic environmental directive – options specified
and compared
Multi-level critique essential – root and branch
problems, detail problems.
London Plan (LP) Review - timetable
Information was circulated on the timetable
for the LP review and the Mayor’s Statement of
Intent. The closing date for comments on this process
is March 1st and agreed our next meeting should have
this as main item.
Sub Regional Development Frameworks (SRDF)
discussions – Mayor's office attempt to do outreach
via London Civic Forum (LCF) + Planning Aid for London
(PAL) really failed with hardly any participants.
Need to challenge this whole methodology.
There is an Assembly scrutiny on this and maybe we should
fight hard on this.
Proposal for seminars on "planning
with communities"
Bal introduced her proposal (appendix 2) for a resource
to support people in London in better exercising their
rights in relation to planning, and the LP in particular.
Peter comments that this is what the London
Forum (of Amenity and Civic Societies) has been trying
to do for 18 years but doubts if many people will get
interested in wider-than local issues. He would change
the order of priorities to emphasis the local.
Discussion focused on importance of making
links between local and bigger levels.
Many people would rather read (e.g. CPRE,
PAL etc others) rather than go to meetings. E.g. the
Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) in every borough
should now be listing every organisation, which should
be informed/ consulted. (SR says no, some boroughs at
least have no difficulty in leaving groups out). Demands
not just to be listed, but then also to really influence
the process, which follows.
In Southwark some of us are setting up
an independent monitoring group on monitoring of implementing
the Statement of Community Involvement.
Some people had severe doubts about meetings
as the medium of raising awareness on planning issues.
Sofia has listed some practical steps
for the funding application (Attached as appendix 3)
Les: could we pilot this idea – to
inform people, to test out the content etc, Seems to
be quite strong support for this sort of way of starting.
Bal inclined to start with places where people have
already expressed a demand/interest, or via Planning
Sanity.
Also proposed to ensure that whatever
we do should have electronic versions – web pages
or pod casts for the many people who can't or don't
go to meetings, and because London is so big.
Over the coming years one of the things
we are aiming to do is to help mobilise people/groups
from across London to be active in relation to the next
LP and the process – which went so badly, so undemocratically,
last time.
Possibility of using Volunteer support
groups money available in Boroughs to fund our proposals.
Marion Larraghy would know more about this.
Lots of scope for exploiting the rhetoric
and requirements of the Local Strategic Partnerships
system – and Penny K knows a lot about this.
Teresa suggested the London Social Forum
should mount a "parallel" process alongside
the mayor's office process – with our own alternative
"statement of intent", panels etc.
Next steps
Strong support and some pessimism, suggestion that RIGHTS
language is a lot stronger and more appealing than the
"have your say" language: this is one of its
strengths.
How to move forwards
This project needs more people working on it –
not just Bal. Peter suggested we discuss with forums
and PAL.Agreed to put it on the list with replies to
the list.
A.O.B.
Agreed to support Teresa’s proposal that an Urban
space at ESF Athens should be within the main programme
and part of the autonomous spaces.
Next meeting
Wednesday 8th February 2006, 7 p.m. – 9 p.m. at
Bartlett.
Appendix 1
HOUSING ALTERATIONS TO THE LONDON PLAN
Summary
The Mayor of London is proposing a large increase in
the number of homes built each year. The existing London
Plan targets for new affordable homes and larger family
homes are not being met. Developments are being approved
without regard to social infrastructure and sustainability.
The alterations must be part of a more wide-ranging
review, if they are to meet the real housing needs of
Londoners.
Purpose of the alterations
The housing alterations only deal with the housing supply
section of the London Plan. However, there is explicit
linkage between supply, affordability and mix.
Main changes
• Increases the minimum target for housing provision
to 31,090 additional homes per year (upfrom the current
23,000 homes per year).
• Sets new borough targets, which basis of monitoring
up to 2016/17.
• Higher densities to be consistent with sustainable
residential quality.
• There is a new paragraph 3.14a, which reads,
“The delivery of these targets is dependent on
adequate funding for transport infrastructure, social
infrastructure and affordable housing. This funding
should ensure that development is sustainable and provides
an appropriate mix of provision in terms of type and
affordability in accordance with the policies set out
in the Plan. Delivery will also be affected by market
forces. Consequently these targets will be reviewed
on a five yearly basis.”
Issues
1. 31,090 additional homes per year is less than the
housing need of 35,000 per annum identified by the GLA’s
2004 Housing Requirements Study.
2. Consideration of the borough targets.3.
Consideration of how
3.14a can be delivered.
4. In 2003, there were 24,000 new homes
of which only 7,500 were affordable homes. The 2004
Study suggested that to meet housing need, over 60%
(of the 35,000) should be affordable housing, made up
of 20,800 social rented and 2,500 intermediate. Clearly,
the current level of affordable housing provision –
and particularly social rented housing – is not
meeting the targets in the London Plan, nor are they
meeting identified needs.
5. It is estimated by the 2004 Study that
in terms of need 42% of new social housing should have
4 or more bedrooms. However, delivery is currently at
6%. There needs to be a much higher level of family
provision than is provided by current developments
.6. The social infrastructure should include
open spaces, playspace, community centres and religious
facilities, as well as public transport, education and
health facilities. There needs to be consideration of
what is meant by sustainable
.7. There should be some analysis as to
why London Plan targets are not being met at a borough
level (in many cases this is due to political decisions
which can be tracked by looking at local planning policies).
8. There needs to be more attention to
monitoring and implementation of the London Plan targets.
It would be useful if boroughs were set targets for
number of affordable homes and number of family homes.
Timetable
20th January (Friday 5 p.m.) - Consultation ends
w/c 6th March - Preliminary examination in public meeting
12th June to 3rd July – Examination in Public
The housing alterations can be downloaded
at www.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/sds/lon_plan_changes
