The Draft London Plan: a workable solution?

The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has launched the Draft London Plan (the Plan) setting out his strategic vision for the capital from 2019-2041. Open to public consultation from 1 December, the final Plan is due to publish in autumn 2019. The mayor’s claim to be “ripping up the planning rule book” in order to revolutionise housing delivery is slightly audacious. Most of the key proposals continue in the direction of travel already firmly established by existing Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG), but there are certainly some sensible and progressive changes afoot. Ambitious targets for housing delivery The significant increases in housing targets will come as little surprise, although the extent to which the burden seems to fall on outer London boroughs may raise eyebrows. Many face a doubling, tripling or even – in the case of Hounslow – a quadrupling of the number of houses they need to deliver. Of course, the big question is how achievable these targets will be, and references throughout the Plan to “proactive intervention” from the mayor suggest we could see more frequent involvement to speed delivery. This isn’t the first time this tactic has been hinted at – the Affordable Housing and Viability SPG adopted in August included similar overtures. Timeline on affordability Housing affordability remains a priority, with the Plan adding practical detail to the already well-known mayoral ambition of 50 per cent affordable provision. By maintaining the current 35 per cent baseline and suggesting a review as late as 2021, the Plan gives developers a slightly unexpected three years’ grace. We could therefore see a rush to bring sites forward before the threshold increases – possibly not quite what the mayor had in mind. That said, in the face of such elevated targets any new homes are welcome. Density, smaller sites and smaller developers Among the most headline-grabbing of the Plan’s proposals has been the relaxation of guidelines on density, with an accompanying focus on brownfield sites and infill development. The Greater London Authority (GLA) has always maintained that the density matrix should not be applied rigidly, but this proposal sends a clear message that boroughs need to err on the side of flexibility. It’s certainly encouraging to see a more appropriate level of recognition given to the context of a site, rather than the less granular, banded approach that has previously held back schemes which could have worked well at higher densities. Helping to unlock much-needed land is a welcome addition to planning policy, but relaxing the density matrix is far from a silver bullet. Local authorities will need to take appropriate action on design codes and adopt a pragmatic approach to viability on smaller sites which often cannot bear protracted negotiations. For example, it seems unlikely that many small sites of, say, 15 units or similar would be able to comply with the mayor’s requirements for “fast track” viability. That said, delayed in-lieu contributions are a welcome move for smaller sites, and may help to address immediate cash flow issues. Changing public perceptions Local authorities and developers will also have to contend with the current negative perception of schemes that increase density. Provocative headlines suggesting that Londoners would be forced to deal with development in their back gardens tapped into prevailing public opinion on the subject. Densification inevitably generates the issue of impact on neighbouring owners and occupiers, as well as the implications for residents of the proposed new scheme. Of course, planners will already be alive to these sorts of issues – for example through the sunlight and daylight assessments generally required for a planning application. However, taking this example, even if these issues are acceptable from a planning perspective, any private law rights of light enjoyed by neighbours might still have an impact on delivery in practice. Consultations for this type of scheme will need to be watertight, focusing on clear and honest communication to bring local communities around to the idea of densification. Without an effective image overhaul, public mistrust and the resultant political reluctance to allow such schemes will stop this policy from ever being meaningfully implemented on the ground. Although unlocking sites is vital, it’s also only the first step. Significant council resource will be required to make the most of these new opportunities, so the question remains over how soon sites can actually be brought forward. Similarly, the focus on empowering smaller developers who would bring much-needed resilience and choice to the market is not as straightforward as it may seem. Policy has not been the only obstacle for smaller operators. Other elements – for example construction finance – will also need to galvanise if we are to see real change. Meeting a variety of needs The Plan also recognises the importance of alternative housing tenures like build-to-rent (BTR) in solving the capital’s housing crisis. All new BTR schemes will need to provide at least 50 units and offer a three-year tenancy alongside rent certainty for the period of the tenancy. The policy also recognises the important role BTR can play in delivering units quickly – although this is equally contingent on local authorities being able to bring forward plans with sufficient speed. New support for shared-living schemes is also welcome. The stipulation that a clear management plan must be submitted alongside planning applications will help ensure that homes are created and maintained where people want to live. However, the somewhat inflexible approach to affordability for this type of scheme could cause issues down the line. Rather than applying what is essentially a blanket approach to viability, progressive planning policy needs to recognise those developments offering units at below market rent – not uncommon in shared living – and provide them with a compelling incentive to continue. Proportional relief from affordable housing contributions would ensure schemes remain viable while delivering a range of options for prospective residents. Meanwhile housing Measures to improve provision of “meanwhile housing” – temporary homes for those displaced by development – will help to avoid some of the issues created by large scale estate regeneration. Giving residents the option to stay in the area they call home would go a long way to smoothing the transition for people affected by this type of development, as well as making vital estate regeneration more acceptable to local politicians and the communities they serve. Increasing transparency The Plan also calls for public transparency on section 106 agreements, requiring boroughs to implement robust monitoring processes and ensure that the information is in the public domain. This would certainly help to make communities more aware of developers’ contributions beyond housing – something which is still relatively little understood. With boroughs and developers under more pressure than ever to deliver the homes London so desperately needs, the stakes are high. As always, the challenge now will be making sure that local authorities and developers have the tools that they need to enact new planning policy in practice – no matter how encouraging the Plan looks on paper. The Plan consultation is open until 2 March 2018. Have your say at: https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/new-london-plan/what-new-london-plan Key proposals in the Draft London Plan Ambitious targets for housing delivery – particularly in outer London boroughs A timeline for increasing the affordability baseline from 35 per cent to 50 per cent, with a review due in 2021 Relaxation of the density matrix, with a focus on maximising brownfield sites and optimising infill development Empowering smaller developers to take on smaller sites Recognition of the importance of homes to meet different needs, including a focus on build to rent, meanwhile housing and shared living developments A focus on increasing transparency, particularly in relation to section 106 agreements Karen Cooksley is Head of Planning and Alex Woolcott is a solicitor at Winckworth Sherwood