Spatial Devel briefing note Feb 2018 page 1

Spatial Development Patterns in the DnLP

The New London Plan has some familiar features in its approach to spatial planning: (“strategic”) areas for regeneration are defined as areas within the 20 per cent most deprived LSOAs in England using the Index of Multiple Deprivation (MAP 1 below); Opportunity Areas are still large sites expected to play a significant role in delivering London’s future housing and employment; Town centres once again feature as important new sites of planning concern, with varying assessments for future potential, for intensification but with a stronger emphasis in providing new housing development (Policy SD6 to Policy SD9). Central Activities Zone continues to raise concerns regarding office to residential conversions from which protections are sought (Policy SD5 F; 2.5.7).

A useful source of London Plan maps (including some not in the London Plan itself) is available here.

Some new developments: (1) Opportunity Areas are now discussed fully in the text of Chapter 2 of the Plan, with some

detailed planning diagrams. This might open up stronger opportunities to test their performance in the EiP and to demand that there be a formal review. The viability challenges of Opportunity Areas could be an important issue to consider (see page 4 below).

(2) Collaborations in developing the Wider Southeast are explicitly dealt with, with a stronger emphasis on the potential role of the wider region in accommodating development through mutual collaboration (Policy SD2; 2.3.4) including more details on growth corridors and strategic infrastructure priorities.

(3) A detailed listing of Town Centres in Annex 1, with maps, indicating their classification, levels of commercial, residential and office development potential. The table also lists if the town centre is part of or includes a strategic area for regeneration.

(4) Policy H1 (B 2a) in Chapter 4 identifies “sites with existing or planned public transport access levels (PTALs) 3-6 or which are located within 800m of a Tube station, rail station or town centre boundary” (District, major, metropolitan and international town centres) for optimizing housing delivery potential, alongside a number of other categories, including small housing sites, brownfield sites, surplus public sector and utility sites, low density commercial and retail uses etc. A map of this is below (MAP 2 below). Concerns regarding displacement long relevant to council housing estates might be anticipated to become more generalized: “In some cases, regeneration will include the loss and replacement of homes and it is important that any such scheme is delivered with existing and new residents and communities in mind. This is particularly pertinent for estate regeneration…” (4.10.3).

Some issues to consider(5) One issue is the overlap amongst these different spatial development categories, and their

different treatment in the Plan. It notes, “Many of the Opportunity Areas identified in the London Plan intersect with Areas for Regeneration” (2.10.5). And Map 3 below shows overlap between town centres and strategic areas of regeneration. For example, stronger statements on participation in regeneration areas are made in the Mayor’s Best Practice Guide for Estate Regeneration, and in some text: “In order to be effective in improving the lives of those most affected by inequality, regeneration initiatives must be undertaken in collaboration with local communities, involving a broad spectrum of groups and individuals, to develop a shared vision for the area. Successful regeneration requires all stakeholders to operate in a collaborative way, pooling resources and creating partnerships” (2.10.3). This should be in the Policy boxes. But no such systematic approaches to participation seem to have been identified for Opportunity Areas or Town Centres.

(6) Overlap of regeneration areas with Opportunity Areas (see Map 4 below) is of concern – major redevelopment of the poorest areas in the city to provide the housing and commercial developments imagined for Opportunity Areas, combined with the lack of funding, the prioritization of infrastructure in S106, and weak requirements for social housing all raise questions about how the ambitions for regeneration can be met in these areas. The Policy Guidance suggests to: “Ensure that Opportunity Areas maximize the delivery of affordable housing and create mixed and inclusive communities” (Policy SD1-A-5). But the funding regime and difficult infrastructure challenges of these areas suggests this is an ineffective goal, likely to lead to removing poor communities, and little reprovision of housing at social rent levels (see below for more detail).

MAP 1 Strategic Areas for Regeneration (p. 95)

1

Spatial Devel briefing note Feb 2018 page 2

MAP 2: 800 m to tube stations and town centres: Available at https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/draft-new-london-plan-2017-high-resolution-images .

2

Spatial Devel briefing note Feb 2018 page 3

MAP 3: This is a zoom in figure of town centres within strategic areas for regeneration (Appendix 1 Figure A1.5). There are some overlaps.

Map 4: Overlap between Opportunity Areas and strategic areas of regeneration. This figure shows the Lee Valley Opportunity Area (DnLP, p. 40). The blue shaded areas are strategic regeneration areas. The Key Diagram Fig 2.1 shows OAs and their groupings by growth areas. But the subsequent parts on each Growth Area have maps that include the depiction of Strategic Regeneration Areas/20% most deprived areas in blue dots https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/draft-new-london-plan-2017-high-resolution-images . However, for street/property detail the 20% most deprived areas are best seen on DCLG map of Indices of Deprivation, http://dclgapps.communities.gov.uk/imd/idmap.html

OPPORTUNITY AREAS and VIABILITY

3

Spatial Devel briefing note Feb 2018 page 4

The large role of “Opportunity Areas” in the delivery of the London Plan targets, is at odds with their status as exceptions to viability norms and affordable housing norms (as set out in the Mayors Affordable Housing and Viability SPG). They also lack formal plans (OAPFs are SPGs, aside from LLDC and OPDC which are planning authorities and have prepared Local Plans with public scrutiny). And there has never been a review of their operation and outcomes. They often lead to displacement of existing communities and are not subject to effective requirements for participation in planning processes. These are some of the reasons why Just Space has consistently called for closer scrutiny of this element of the plan.

The London Plan Viability Study finds that developer contributions to affordable housing and to meeting planning obligations can be sustained across a wide range of land value and building form scenarios, for residential, commercial, industrial and other accommodation (students, shared housing) and tenure types (for sale, build to rent, registered providers).

However, while this overall positive finding on viability would seem to support the Mayor’s Funding policy, primarily relying on planning gain agreements, there are some important situations in which viability is at issue. These places, we suggest, are largely to be found in designated Opportunity Areas, which are “The areas that will see the most significant change” (p. 27) and which “have the potential to deliver a substantial amount of the new homes and jobs that London needs”. Many opportunity areas take the form of e.g. disused industrial land; industrial land in current use; “Many of the Opportunity Areas identified in the London Plan intersect with Areas for Regeneration” (2.10.5), and thus contain significant quantities of existing housing accommodating London’s most vulnerable populations; they might be existing railway land; marginal areas e.g. swamp land; contaminated land (as in the LLDC area). While there has been no overview analysis of Opportunity Areas as suitable for development, from numerous academic studies, developer proposals and planning frameworks it is reasonable to suggest that the Opportunity Areas are not only represent London’s largest development opportunities; they are also amongst the most difficult sites to bring forward.

Thus, for Opportunity Areas, the largest component of planned development in the context of this plan, the comments in the London Plan Viability Study which suggest where development might be least viable are applicable:

5.6.14 Some sites have other costs that are exceptional, reflecting the specific development found there, and which are not readily replicated for policy testing purposes – for example new transport or social infrastructure. While sites have been tested with onsite and offsite infrastructure requirements, scenarios with very substantial exceptional costs are atypical and lie outside the scope of this testing. Such schemes may be subject to site specific testing where the infrastructure cost is preventing delivery. It is also noted that, where there are exceptional development circumstances and associated costs, these may enhance market values and/or increase costs and it would be expected that these would be reflected in the land value for the site. Furthermore, it is understood that the GLA also engages with landowners and developers and provides funding to accelerate delivery on brownfield land such as in Housing Zones and facilitates funding bids from sources such as the Housing Infrastructure Fund. (VIABILITY STUDY, P. 33)

14.3.1 Given the diversity of the London market, it can be no surprise that development viability varies across the city. The underlying message of the viability testing is that most development types can meet the policy requirements of the draft London Plan. The Viability Study also highlights that the viability of individual schemes which face viability challenges, and are genuinely unable to meet the full range of policy requirements, may need to be considered. The draft Plan allows for this for residential schemes through a Viability Tested Route for applications where there are clear circumstances preventing delivery. (VS, P. 104)

There is the expectation expressed in the Viability Study that improved transport infrastructure will enhance viability. However, this fails to notice that the funding of this infrastructure is to be paid for through S106 and Cil charges, which themselves rely on the same viability forecasts. This seems to be a circular argument, in which development must pay for transport infrastructure, to enable development, whose viability will not therefore extend to either effective housing delivery or the planning obligations imagined in the London Plan. TfL note that “Our work on upgrading the existing

4

Spatial Devel briefing note Feb 2018 page 5

network will support 80,000 homes across the city, serving important Opportunity Areas and leading to more homes and jobs” (tfl service analysis (Mayor’s budget 2018/19:http://content.tfl.gov.uk/transportforlondonmayorsbudget201819final.pdf ). But at the same time their budget shortfalls indicate that it could well be the Opportunity Area developments that are called on to fund these transport investments:

14.3.2 Forecasts of future values and build costs have been tested which indicate the potential for improvements in viability across most development types within the plan period. This coupled with major infrastructure investment e.g. the Elizabeth Line, the London Overground Extension to Barking Riverside and Silvertown Tunnel and/or other forms of substantial public investment e.g. the Housing Infrastructure Fund, could strengthen viability significantly even in the lowest value bands. (VS, P. 104)

But note the challenges of TfL funding:“Transport for London’s annual revenue funding from Government will be cut from £700 million to zero two years earlier than expected. TfL was facing £900 million of extra cost and £270 million of total lost fares revenue from the failure of a key tube upgrade contract. We will have to wait until TfL publishes its revised business plan in December 2016 to assess what areas TfL will prioritise and what the consequences will be for London’s transport network.”( https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/budget_and_performance_committee_report_tfls_financial_challenge_final.pdf )

5