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. 

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

Major changes to planning system announced in Spring Budget

As expected the UK chancellor George Osborne has used his budget to announce some major changes to the UK planning system, which he called a 'chronic obstacle to economic growth'  with the aim of encouraging development for economic gain.


The changes include relaxing planning regulations to try and kick start house building, following many years of  declining numbers of new homes constructed.  The fear for many here is a increase in greenfield sites swallowed up for development, there is also a fear that the government will remove guidelines specifying density levels which could lead to overcrowded residential areas.


Local planning authorities have also being given a 12 month time limit for the processing of ALL planning applications, including appeals. This may be fine for a rural authority but in a urban borough with many major applications in at once this will surely be a tough ask. 


Enterprise zones have also made a welcome comeback, the first of which will be located in Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester Airport, Liverpool, The Tees Valley, Nottinghamshire, The Black Country, London, Derbyshire and the West of England.


Each enterprise zone will feature simplified planning processes as well as discounts on businesses that choose to locate in these areas. Critics have argued they simply run the risk of simply shifting businesses from one area to another.

The Economic Future of Britain's Cities

The Centre for Cities have recently published its latest report analysing how individual cities across the UK were affected during the last recession; this coming as the UK economy slumped 0.5% in the last quarter of 2010 and government cuts are taking hold. 


The report reveals that Barnsley, Doncaster and Hull all saw some of the biggest rises in people claiming for benefits (behind Swindon) between February 2008 and June 2009, the close geographic nature of these settlements is worrying; highlighting localised issues, that could affect more people than those within the city boundaries. 


Despite this some cities have managed to bounce back more strongly than others and it is the demand for low skilled workers which has made the strongest recovery and places with a strong low skill sector have seen the strongest growth, with Doncaster and Hull both seeing the claimant count drop between March and November 2010. This is not to pretend Manufacturing is the answer to our cities woes; the sector accounting for around 10% of all GDP in 2006, steadying out after 30 years of continuous decline. Thus any significant % rises in the sector will be small in comparison to the entire jobs market. 


A major concern will be how our cities cope, with significant reduction in welfare spending; only today Liverpool city council announced significant job cuts, this a city with the 2nd highest welfare bill per capita, only behind its cross river neighbour Birkenhead. Which leads to the question, is it cheaper to the government to have an increasing number of people on welfare than doing government or council jobs? The cuts in Liverpool will remove around £192 per resident, this equates to less money in the economy and more importantly less localised spending, which can only lead to struggling businesses and further job losses. The cycle can be fatal. 


The North / South divide is also very prevalent with 6 of the 10 least affected areas of welfare cuts located in this region. There is opportunity for growth in these tough times with Aberdeen, Bristol and Leeds, 3 places which the Centre for Cities report sees as having the potential to grow, a result of strong private sectors built up during the boom years. 


Despite 1 in 3 private sector jobs  (37%) currently located within the 11 major Cities, it was the smaller cities located in the south which saw the fastest population growth between 1999 and 2009. It is important these places can retain and attract jobs. The Yorkshire cities of York (2) and Leeds (6) were the only Northern Cities in the top 10 fastest growing cities by population. York also has the 7th lowest claimant count (Nov 2010) while Leeds is only one of two places which saw its employment rate increase between June 2008/9 and June 2009/10. 


Unfortunately employment rates can be deceptive, for example City A may have 80% of people in employment but all earning around minimum wage while City B may only have 60% employment but all within the countries top earners, this means that it is City B which has the most money swirling within its local economy. 7 of the UKs highest earning cities are in the South of the country, the exceptions are  Warrington, Edinburgh and Aberdeen. Of cities with the lowest average wage 9 are in the North, the exception is Hastings, the bottom 2; Grimsby and Hull both located within close proximity to each other and are both highly isolated from significant areas of population, a factor which makes it harder than ever to keep money flowing within the local area and any prospect of recovery even more difficult. To compound its problems between 2006 and 2010 Grimsby saw a -1.8% decrease in earnings (at 2006 prices). 


The next economic quarter will be crucial in determining whether the country slips back into recession, the key is to keep money flowing within our cities, I fear this will prove harder than ever as public sector workers see there jobs disappear something which could potentially lead to localised problems within cities with an over reliance of public sector jobs. 


The report can be read in Full here 

Building Tall

Any retrospective look at the past decade in planning and development terms cannot fail to ignore that the UK saw a significant re-emergence of the tall building. The first tall building boom in the 1960s was down to 2 main factors, the first largely a ‘panic solution’ (HOC 01) in meeting social housing demand following the clearances of the high density victorian slums in the inner cities.  The second prompting factor for tall office development was a result of site shortages in the inner cores of British cities and the difficulties in assembling large sites. (DTLR). 

Unfortunately as a result of the swiftness upon which many such developments were constructed meant many such schemes were of both of a poor quality, and of a poor design which led to high crime rates and unsatisfactory living conditions, coupled alongside high profile incidents such as the collapse of Ronan point; the 1970s and 1980s saw an inevitable decline in the number of tall buildings erected.

The revival has its origins in the developer led economies of the late 1980s, which saw the construction of One Canada square, at Canary Wharf, yet this building famously stood on its own for much of the 1990s, and was not fully unoccupied until the start of the 21st Century.

The Shard under construction (June 2010)

Ken Livingston, the former Mayor of London; in particular can claim to be at the forefront of the revival and his pro-tall building policies saw dramatic changes to the skyline of both the City of London and Canary Wharf, despite the present mayor been considerably less enthusiastic for tall buildings as the economy begins to show small signs of improvement; we are still seeing a number of new super tall structures which were given permission in the Livingston era, under construction.  The most notable addition is the tallest of them all The Shard, which when complete will not only be the tallest in the UK but also Europe. The Shard is also notable because it is outside of the two recognised clusters of Canary Wharf and the City,  lying instead within the borough of Southwark incidentally keen supporters of Livingston’s policies. It is highly unlikely this tower would have seen the light of day, if it wasn’t for the proactive policies that were encouraged.  

The success of London in developing high quality tall buildings saw other cities notably Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool attempt to copy the formula that the capital had developed, with mixed results.

Leeds in particular saw a number of student housing led developments which now  scar the northern edge of the city centre. 'Sky plaza' incidentally when constructed the tallest student housing scheme in Europe, acting as nothing but a breeze brick wall between the city centre and the inner city suburb of little london.

Manchester fared slightly better, with the high quality Beetham 'Hilton' Tower a successful new icon for the city

What is particularly interesting through is that there is no national tall buildings policy framework, with local authorities free to develop their own policy; an approach which in many areas has led to a developer led system. Interestingly both Manchester and Leeds have taken different strategies here.

Manchester city council does not believe a dedicated tall buildings policy would add any value (Short 2006), with the council reasoning due to the limited number of sites in the city centre in which tall buildings could actually be built.         

This is perhaps a  short sighted way of looking at things, by designating areas for clusters, when over time as sites come up for redevelopment ; the city council could dictate to developers that tall buildings would be preferable. A tall buildings policy also prevents developers wasting time and money submitting applications in unsuitable locations, or developers being granted permission in unsuitable locations after appeal, due to a lack of policy to back up the local planning authority’s decision for refusal.  It could also dictate other things such as ensuring only suitable materials are used.

A lack of policy has also led to overbearing developments such as the great northern tower, constructed between two well used public spaces,  leaving both permanently in the shade.

 Leeds City Council has implemented what could be described as reactive policy measures to the development pressures. The primary document, the ‘Tall buildings design guide’ was published in 2008 as a supplementary planning document following consultation in 2007. Its purpose is ‘to establish clear principles and advice to steer them to appropriate locations and to ensure they are well designed’ (Tall buildings design guide 2008) the guide establishes 7 key principles.    
                                                      

The document supports the idea of constructing tall buildings in clearly defined clusters, which it states can draw attention to an area and handle the environment better (Tall building guide 2007 pg 58), It therefore identifies 2 areas of opportunity for tall building clusters; these are located at key gateway points into the city centre, to the north and to the south of the historic core. The northern cluster aims to re-enforce upon a number of tall buildings constructed in this area during the tall building boom of the 1960s.

The document is very conscious about creating a positive skyline, which follows policy SA1 of the cities unitary development plan, which states ‘The design and sitting of new buildings should complement and, where possible, enhance existing vistas, skylines and landmark’. The guide suggests that the skyline could be broken, with a restricted number of taller ‘iconic’ buildings.

The ‘Tall buildings design  guide’ though has been criticised, Rachel Unsworth in Punter (ed) Urban design and the British urban renaissance argues it simply attempts to justify the sighting and visual impact of structures, when in reality there locations are the product of private developers finding sites,  a key example of this is ‘the super tower zone’ which when the plan was produced featured planning consent for 2 landmark towers (Lumiere and Criterion place (now both abandoned with low rise replacements proposed on both sites), the attempt to retrofit these towers into policy, according to Unsworth is in direct contravention of the cities only policy of clustering towers.

As a result of the economic uncertainty between 2008 and 2010, many schemes in Leeds have subsequently been either abandoned or mothballed on site, with few new schemes coming forward; the question of whether a tall buildings guide is really necessary in a provincial city such as Leeds is being asked by critics (Unsworth 2010. The document has therefore proved too much as a reactive document and too late to really influence anything. 

So what is the way forward?

I have two key recommendations that could go some way to ensuring all new tall developments are constructed to a high specification.

The first is that the current CABE/ English Heritage advice document on the matter should be developed into a dedicated planning policy statement. This is important to ensure the guidance which says the right things is not ignored.

The City of London 

The second recommendation is to make it compulsory for the countries major cities to develop tall buildings policies, as supplementary planning documents, that are updated regularly. This would ensure that any new documents are not produced as a response to emerging proposals but can have real influence in directing tall buildings to the right locations. 

Tall buildings can dominate streets and even cities and may often be responsible for helping to shape people’s opinions of a place, those done well such as St Marys Axe (Above) in London help create the impression of a modern, forward thinking and dynamic city to residents and visitors alike. Cities such as New York, Shanghai, Dubai can build poor buildings, with the expectation that they will help develop the skyline from a distance but be clouded out by nearby better quality structures. Cities such as Leeds, Manchester and London cannot do this, our skylines are not as developed and it is unlikely they will ever be. Bad buildings stand out.  

It could be argued that it is a failure of the planning system that we have not put the proper policy in place to protect the integrity of our cities.