The Folly of Prior-approval and Developers Greed

Listeners to  local radio in  London  may be familiar with recent adverts for Galliard Homes promoting a new development at Waltham Cross called 'King Edward House'. With property prices spiraling out of control for all but the very rich, the advert describes a development seemingly perfect for young first time buyers. 

So i naturally thought i would check it out. The picture on the Galliard Homes website looks like this.

Which to me looks like a office building with some colouful balconies tacked on. 

Ah yes, its this building.

Suspicious that the scheme was permitted under the recent changes to permitted development legislation, allowing change of use from class B1 (offices) to C3 (Residential) i decided to check out the application and came across this refreshing, honest and shocking critique of the scheme within the decision notice. 

Hmmm

And my concerns sadly don't end there, The development sits just outside of the area under the control of the Greater London authority and the space standards which govern new accommodation within the city. A quick look at the size of new units presents a worrying picture.

Lets first look at the London plan space standards.

And now the size of the units within this development

Studio,   31sqm

1b,         35sqm

2b          48sqm

This scheme in all its lack of glory illustrates the folly of the prior-approval process, not only does Waltham Cross lose valuable office space, something vital in the creation of mixed use sustainable communities, it gains a apartment block described by its own planning as 'likely resulting in  a poor standard of accommodation', and with 2 bed units smaller than the minimum size for a 1 bed unit in the London plan, you don't get too much for your money either. The long term result of such a approach to planning is worrying. 

But at least its providing cheap accomodation right?

Yes only £245,000 for a small single aspect 2 bed apartment in a former office building overlooking a very busy road in zone 7.

Bargain.

How Camden Market trumps the North...

Sir David Higgins, the man tasked with the delivery of High Speed 2, released his first report into the vital yet sadly controversial project this week. (HS2 plus, DofT, 2014)

While much of the associated headlines have lauded his proposals to extend Phase 1 up to Crewe as offering proof of the government’s commitment to the North (HS2 benefits to north could be delivered six years earlier, says Sir David Higgins, Guardian 17th March), the largely ignored decision to scrap the proposed link between the new line and the existing High speed 1, immediately endorsed by the Transport secretary Patrick McLaughlin is of far greater consequence and illustrative of an increasing London centric government (and media’s) ambivalence towards anything outside of the M25.

Why is this connection so Important?

A link between High speed 2 and High speed 1 between Euston and St Pancras Stations would have provided the potential to run direct trains from the Northern Cities to Mainland Europe directly connecting these cities into a huge market. To scrap the link ensures that all trains from Mainland Europe will go direct into London, re-enforcing the capitals dominance over the regions and effectively relegating High Speed 2 into a branch line.  

So why is it on the lIne?

Camden council have been at war with the Government over the link since the proposals were first announced The route itself as is shown in the maps below will have involved widening the existing railway link between the two stations, Camden council believe the process of construction would have resulted in ‘a decade of disruption’, destroying the famous tat market and making the area unattractive to tourists. A single look at plans a (alongside a Google earth image for comparison) illustrates much of the new track will be on the existing and vacant viaduct and where it isn’t will involve a very slight widening of the existing viaduct.

Illustrating a section of the proposed route through Camden 

 It has also been argued by the likes of Sir David and the Transport Secretary that there is little demand for direct services between the likes of Manchester and Paris to justify the cost of the link, yet without the link in place it is difficult to assess the demand. It has to be remembered that Manchester and Leeds will not be connected to the network until 2030 at the earliest so we are talking many years into the future. To write of these cities now shows a worrying lack of foresight especially as London overheats.

How much will this Link have cost?

The link would have cost an estimated £700 million, from an overall budget of, £42.6b a paltry saving especially when one considers the potential economic boost such a link would have provided to the North of England.

How much will it cost to rebuild Euston Station?

Sir David also recommended that Euston Station be redeveloped at a staggering cost of £1.2 billion, something also immediately endorsed by the Transport Secretary who said

‘It is a significant opportunity to maximise the economic potential of the line and regenerate a site that has been neglected. It is also a significant opportunity to generate private sector investment that can reduce the overall burden on the taxpayer’

If he feels the area around Euston is in urgent need of regeneration he quite obviously has never left zones 1 and 2.

The ironic and sad fact of this is that the £700 million invested into the link will have had a much greater long term economic return than the £1.2 billion to spruce up Euston Station, while based upon evidence elsewhere in both the UK and on Mainland Europe the presence of the High speed rail station in itself will have attracted substantial private investment into the area anyway.

So what can we conclude from all this?

Camden already has High Speed 1 on its doorstep, this enables it to attract new investment and substantial numbers of tourists as well as enabling its well healed and connected residents (of which includes Stanley; Dad of Boris and prominent anti High Speed 2 campaigner who recently was quoted as saying all it will do is enable Young female jihadists to get down from Birmingham 20 minutes quicker) to get a train to Paris or Brussels quickly and efficiently.

That the Transport Secretary is prepared to let the economic future of Camden Flea Market trump the likes of Leeds, Manchester and Birmingham and in turn effectively isolate the rest of the country from other European cities for the benefit of a few well influenced North London luvvies says all that needs to be said about the stranglehold London has upon the rest of the country. 

Protecting the Crown

The new permitted development rights which come into full force today (30th May 2013) represents one of the most ill-thought policies yet from a coalition government rapidly slimming down the planning system.

One of the most worrying and controversial aspects of the scheme is the right for the conversion from class B1(a) to C3 use without the requirement for planning permission. At the start of May the government released a list of areas who were successful in lobbying for an exemption. 

The full list  is an odd mix and raises questions over the process used to determine the successful areas; especially when one notes that Sevenoaks which have somehow managed to give special protection to the Crown Inn at Westerham is the seat of the business minister Michael Fallon. 

While it is undisputed that certain boroughs, particularly in London, must protect their office stock in order to attract investment and businesses it is concerning that not enough protection is given to the valuable office sock in the regional cities (with the exception of Manchester) or rural districts outside of the south east of England; The area precisely where more homes are needed.

Cutting the supply of office accommodation in key regional centres stands to force up the prices of the existing office stock which will only make it more difficult for small and young businesses to find suitable premises; stifling both innovation and  entrepreneurial-ship outside of the capital. Two qualities we should be encouraging as the country staggers out of recession.

The policy will be to the long term detriment to regional economic growth.

The need to obtain planning permission does not prevent such changes were they are appropriate indeed in practice I have succeeded in releasing land from B1 use in a central London borough with little fuss. The advantage of the planning process is that it allows the local community and the relevant local authority to consider the impacts of the change on the locality and on the economy.

The government promised to give communities a greater voice via its localism agenda, this policy prevents this voice being heard.

The 2011 census and the need to re-discover regional cities

The 2011 census revealed an unprecedented rise in population between 2001 and 2011, of 3.7 million in England, the need to re-discover our cities is more important than ever before.

Over this period the population of London increased by over 850,000, around 100,000 people more than the entire population of Leeds; England’s 3^rd largest City. 

Despite this, London works as an urban entity. Its population supports a fully integrated transport system while providing the opportunity for a sustainable and compact living environment which other cities can only aspire to. 

Population densities illustrate the extent to which regional cities in the UK could be described as underpopulated.

The top 5 most densely populated London Boroughs (2011 Census)

1. Islington: 13,875 people per sq km
2. Kensington and Chelsea: 13,087 people per sq km
3. Hackney: 12,845 people per sq km
4. Tower Hamlets: people per sq km
5. Lambeth: 11,305 people per sq km

The least densely populated London borough is Bromley with 2061 people per sq km.

Now lets compare this with population densities of England’s 5 largest cities

1. Birmingham: 1,073,000  (4007 people per sq km)
2. Leeds: 751,500 (1362 people per sq km)
3. Sheffield:  552,700 (1502 people per sq km)
4. Bradford: 522,500 (1426 people per sq km)
5. Manchester: 503,100 (4350 people per sq km)

The largest population density outside of London is Portsmouth with 5081 people per sq km.

This Illustrates the extent to which all are major cities are desperately underpopulated, if Leeds were to have the same population density as Bromley, a suburban in character outer London borough, the population could reach 1,137,672, an additional 386,172 people. If it had the same population density as Islington an astonishing 7,659,000 people could be supported within the city boundaries.  

If population growth is to continue these figures illustrate the need to re-balance the regional economies before the densities in London become too high for services to adequately support and begin to negatively impact upon the quality of life of its residents.

My 5 point plan to create a more evenly focused economy

1. Regional centre’s need to look at attracting new start up businesses, all the cities I have listed are home to respected universities and business schools with thousands of graduates passing through every year.

Local councils should look at offering tax breaks and / or rate relief to start up businesses for at least the first 2 years of operation. This will help to rediscover the entrepreneurial spirit which powered much of the early growth of the UK’s regional cities.

2. Fiscal autonomy should be provided to give greater powers for regional cities to develop integrated transport networks without going to Whitehall.

3. Re-nationalise regional transport in a similar vain to London, refocus the aim of providing public transport on getting people from A to B quickly, rather than on profit margin and keeping shareholders happy.

3. New neighborhood’s should form part of the urban fabric of the city, Hulme in south Manchester provides a good low rise but high density starting point.

4. Develop High speed rail with a new hub airport at Birmingham.

Easy.

The alternative? London becomes more unaffordable and regional cities continue a damaging period of stagnation within an increasingly competitive European economy.

Future housing growth needs to be concentrated in existing urban areas as these offer the most sustainable living environments, reducing our carbon footprints and land use.

 Sources: 

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_270487.pdf

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/datablog/interactive/2012/jul/16/census-2011-uk-map-data?intcmp=239

Westfield Stratford City, Privatising the Olympic Legacy

This is not an architectural blog and I do not wish to impose views of taste, but in some cases the architecture of a development can be of such bad taste that it damages the quality of the surrounding environment to the extent of adversely affecting people's quality of life.


The new Westfield shopping centre in Stratford is one such building, the 'designer' (no architect could come up with this) has sought to blend the worst of both Birmingham New street station and the Manchester Arndale centre  into one of the worst new buildings ever constructed (at least in the 1960s they hadnt made the mistakes before to know they were making mistakes).


The centre, will be the first welcome to 70% of visitors to the Olympic site, or all those who choose to arrive by public transport.


When the scheme was in planning a 'landmark tower' was promised instead we have a tower, housing a premier inn of the quality that you would expect of a student residence in Wolverhampton, (My apologies Victoria Hall).


On opening a metal roof tile fell and smashed on the floor, if anything was to give those present an indiction of the quality of this building, then perhaps that was it. This is a development where no expense has being spared, or indeed spent. From one of the worlds richest developers on such a landmark site, this is simply not good enough and I cant help but feel Newham Council have got this massively wrong by letting such an uninspiring and cheap design through a planning system in place to promote quality and  prevent a developer free for all.


In some ways it makes me laugh, on one hand you have parish councils in the shires threatening to sabotage every development they are faced with, no matter how insignificant or small. On the other you have inner city councils, with arguably more resources and trained staff, letting major developments through in the quest of jobs and investment and in this case bragging rights of my shopping centre is bigger than yours. (*)


A mixed use development offering opportunities for local enterprise would have left a far greater legacy and brought much greater local economic re-investment.


Although jobs are always welcome, 8000 low paid retail positions wont have the long lasting economic benefits the council hopes nor will these people have much spending power themselves while the profits made in the shops and by Westfield will be banked and leave Newham indefinitely.


This review by Rowen Moore in  the Observer, sums up many personal feelings and offers a fair assessment of the scheme.


With the recent opening of both Liverpool One and Cabot circus in Bristol, it was felt a new generation of mall had emerged and  we had passed the stage of developing indoor and inward looking single use centres. Hopefully these examples will prove the rule rather than the exception.


To finish on a few positives, the development does make the most of public transport opportunities, with links to Stratford International and the DLR and Mainline stations, as well as also containing a large bus station.  It is also apparently very nice inside. 


Here are some pictures.
1, 2, 3, 4 and 5

Why Good Public Transport Systems Matter

Model Train: About as far as Transport improvements outside of London go in the UK 

Following the short sighted decision in Edinburgh to substantially shorten the cities under construction Tram line: 


Linking Social exclusion and public transport: Why good public systems matter


Transport is one of several barriers inhibiting access to employment…employers were not employing people from certain places because transport links were known to be inadequate’’ and unreliable’ (DOT 2000: 50)

It is generally assumed that everyone owns or has access to a car, the truth is somewhat different, according to Poverty.org.uk, in 2010, 25% of men and 40% of women either lacked a car in their household or do not having a driving license. This makes the provision of public transport essential for many people in enabling them to form social networks outside of the community in which they live, as well as providing access to education, retail, heath, employment and leisure facilities. 


The design of our cities sadly makes life difficult for those without access to private transport, low density suburban development and a shift of shopping, leisure and offices to the edge of settlements has created dispersed cities. At the same time public transport networks have failed to adapt to modern land-use patterns, leading to declines in usage and in turn reduced frequencies. 


It is now 10 yeas since PPG 13 was published, which was the first major policy document to specifically link social exclusion and pubic transport, stating...

A key planning objective is to ensure that jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services are accessible by public transport, walking, and cycling. This is important for all, but especially for those who do not have regular use of a car, and to promote social inclusion. (PPG13, 2001: 9) 

Yet the issue is still rarely touched upon and large scale public transport investments outside of London have proved rare and in the case of the proposed light rail networks in Leeds and Liverpool axed. While cycling which has the potential to provide a low cost transport (and obesity) solution is still to be fully embraced,  a result of a long term lack of any serious investment in cycle networks by local authorities. 


Further inefficiencies can be leveled at the '1998 UK bus competition act' which prevents bus operators agreeing timetables and routes, arguably preventing fully connected transport networks and makes life difficult for people needing to change routes, creating the disintegrated networks many people see today. 


Whether Edinburgh should have decided to invest in light rail is a issue many residents of the city have being asking for along time. 


The main advantage of light rail over busses and heavy rail, is its ability to enable permanent new public transport routes through the middle of urban areas, with an ability to carry passengers faster, and more reliably than the pre-mentioned alternatives while allowing high frequency stops. 


Th issue of permanence is particularly important, as the service cannot be cut at a moments notice, inspiring confidence in a location and presenting a forward thinking and modern city. Creating a favorable impression to visitors but also inspiring residents and it is inevitable new developments and businesses will be attracted alongside light rail lines. 


At the same time, the initial outlay of light-rail is expensive and once built it is not cheap to run,  monetary costs which are often passed onto the rider itself at social cost. 


Edinburgh like other British cities needs a long term and  targeted public transport plan that is supported by those in government. Light rail wasn't and It is particularly sad that the part of the route cut linked Leith one of Edinburgh's most deprived districts to the city centre and with further connections, beyond; which would have opened up a huge number of potential opportunities for residents.


The UK government is cutting back on many areas of expenditure, something that I support in principle. But this shouldn't come at the cost of developing social inclusion, something which can only lead to helping its primary aim of economic growth.  


The recent riots seen across the UK were the result of a socially excluded element of our society, who felt dissatisfied with there communities enough to smash then up. Integrated transport systems can go some way to reconnecting these neighborhoods back into the city.

Construction of Underground rail in Rotterdam (Netherlands); here a longer term view is taken 

The end of the line

The Edinburgh tram project descended into further farce yesterday with spiraling construction costs, estimated at around £700 million leading Conservative and Labour councillors to vote to end the line at Haymarket, 11 stops short of its intended destination and 2 miles and 3 stops from the City centre and main transport interchange at Waverley Station. 

Taking the line just the extra 2 miles would have given the scheme estimated profits of around 2 million per year, the revised scheme is now expected to lose 4 million during the same period. 

Its is long term planning like this which makes me proud to be British.

The Revised route, in dark red, and where the route should have really ended, itself well short of the original plan. 

The scheme was already deeply unpopular, especially amongst small business owners upset at a huge level of local disruption. The fact that areas which have now put up with delays, diversions and construction work for the past 2 years will now not even be able to experience the benefits of the project will only rile residents further. 

One tram line through one of the least dense areas of the city will contribute little to encouraging modal shift and seeing empty trams running around may only increase public anger and exacerbating the negative feeling towards future large scale transport improvements in the city which would be a great shame; in a period of increasing petrol costs and a growing awareness of the negative impact cars have in urban environments.