Publication of the new London Plan is not scheduled until Autumn 2019, but architects are reporting regular instances of planners’ adhering to policies in the draft document. This raises questions about the extent to which early stage schemes should have to accommodate requirements that are not yet planning policy.
Consultation on the draft London Plan closed at the beginning of the month, but there is still a long way to go before the draft takes on its final form. Comments received to date will be reviewed by an independent Planning Inspector over the coming months, who will carry out a formal Examination in Public, a process not expected to begin until the Autumn.
This leaves London’s planning regime in transition for the next 18 months.
Roland Karthaus, Director of Matter Architecture, says planners are already treating the draft as emerging policy that has some weight, although this is varying from borough to borough:
‘We’re not finding that this is significantly altering current pre-app discussions, but none of our schemes are yet testing any of the specific [new] requirements. Many of the measures (eg accessible homes), have been emerging for some time and for the most part our projects have been anticipating these.
At the policy level, there seems to be a great deal of awareness of the challenge of meeting housing targets and the scrapping of the density matrix in favour of designing appropriate to context, but not yet any clarity on what this means for individual sites.’
Karthaus points out that many of the draft policies require boroughs to assess and set local parameters, such as the Urban Greening Factor that will determine provision of green roofs, walls and spaces. These will have to compete with other space requirements such as renewables, although he says there is no indication of where this policy is currently heading.
Several practices have reported pressure to increase cycle parking provision in line with the draft Plan.
Riette Oosthuizen, the partner responsible for planning at HTA Design, reports back on a colleague’s experience with Transport for London at the Olympic Office Centre in Wembley where the Greater London Authority’s Stage 1 feedback requires increased cycle parking provision. This is being cited as a requirement in accordance with the strong policy direction set out in both the draft London Plan and the Mayor’s Transport Strategy.
Other instances cited by Oosthuizen include: a request to specify whether employment floorspace on a scheme will provide low-cost business space aimed at SMEs or affordable workspace intended for charities and creative industries; and the need to address the Mayor’s new Good Practice Guide to Estate Regeneration – under consultation until next week – which implies no rent increases for residents on social rent tenures and so impacts on viability.
She also reports that HTA’s landscape team are grappling with the Urban Greening Factor on several schemes at the conceptualisation stage.
So, when can architects’ legitimately resist demands to meet planning policy requirements if they are still very much at the draft stage?
RIBA Planning Group member Colin Haylock, who is a past President of the Royal Town Planning Institute, says planners can have regard for an emerging plan from the day of its publication, but can give more weight to it as progresses through the consultation and examination stages.
‘The general principle is that decision makers give more weight to a draft plan as it advances, according to how far the process has gone and whether the matters in question are still being challenged. This applies to all emerging plans and to the appeals process,’ explains Haylock.
‘If you are being asked to do something onerous that is very different to the existing plan, then the matter becomes questionable and architects can challenge this and question the weight being given to a particular policy.’
Haylock points out that there is a national policy on transition arrangements for local plans. It is set out in Annexe 1 (paragraph 216) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). It makes clear that planners must have regard to the extent of any unresolved objections to relevant policies.
So just how advanced is the new London Plan adoption process now? That is another question, and the answer probably depends on who you ask.
Thanks to Roland Karthaus, Director, Matter Architecture; Riette Oosthuizen, Partner, HTA Design; and Colin Haylock, Principal, Haylock Planning and Design.
by Neal Morris. This is a Professional Feature edited by the RIBA Practice team. Send us your feedback and ideas.
RIBA Core Curriculum Topic: Places, planning and communities.
As part of the flexible RIBA CPD programme, Professional Features count as microlearning. See further information on the updated RIBA CPD Core Curriculum and on fulfilling your CPD requirements as an RIBA Chartered Member.
Posted on 29 March 2018.
