How tall is tall? Confusion over London Plan’s policy

COMMENT The London Plan is designed to bring some clarity and consistency to planning in London, but as far as tall buildings are concerned, the recently published plan creates uncertainty. In drafting Policy D9, the broad London-wide definition was dropped in favour of placing the onus on boroughs coming up with their own definition of “tall” and spelling out where such buildings should be located. But with the secretary of state stepping in with his final direction in December 2020, the plan’s publication earlier this month saw the addition of a few words that appear to add back in a definition of tall as “not less than six storeys or 18m”. Discussing this with clients over the past few weeks, we have identified a number of ramifications. On the one hand, Policy D9 sends a clear message to authorities such as Wandsworth, which in January published its Regulation 18 Local Plan attempting to define tall in some parts of the borough as five storeys. On the other hand, on a London-wide strategic basis, can 18m really be considered tall? The Mayor of London Order, the legislation that defines which planning applications are referable to the GLA, retains its threshold of 30m or 25m in the Thames Policy Area. The NLA’s Annual Tall Buildings Survey has historically only considered buildings over 20 storeys in height. And a quick flick back a few pages from Policy D9 is Policy D4 which, untouched by the secretary of state, retains reference to 30m. So which is it to be – 18m or 30m? Lacking definition Perhaps more significant is the message that the new London Plan sends to authorities as to where tall buildings may be permitted. The secretary of state’s direction was designed “to ensure that there is clear policy against tall buildings outside any areas that boroughs determine are appropriate for tall buildings”. So tall buildings may only be approved in locations which are specifically highlighted as appropriate on maps forming part of the Local Plan. By reverse, therefore, any tall building outside of such areas should be refused. What does this mean for an authority (a) without a definition for a tall building and (b) without an up-to-date plan showing where such buildings should be located? On the former, the assumption would be to fall back on the wording of Policy D9 on what constitutes tall until the local authority gets its act in gear. But a true interpretation of the policy wording as distinct from the supporting text would suggest that that is not the case. On the latter, inevitably applicants and authorities will apply the well-versed method of analysing the context and weighing up on balance whether a tall building would be appropriate. Gentle densification Does the policy hail the end of opportunistic tall buildings? And is the desire for “gentle densification” really enough to meet ambitious housing targets? Already we are beginning to see authorities determine applications against Policy D9, with Harrow citing it as a reason for refusal for a scheme of seven storeys last month. It will be very interesting to see how various proposals, either at the application stage or at appeal, will be determined over coming months and what the policy might unwittingly mean for housing delivery. The industry will be anxious to gain an informed understanding of the potential ramifications of the new policy wording and Carter Jonas is carrying out research to identify which local authorities have tall buildings policies that will enable schemes of six or more storeys to progress through the planning system. From that exercise, an indication of the future distribution of major schemes throughout Greater London should become clear. Katy Davis is a partner and planning specialist at Carter Jonas