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.  

Planning the Unknown

After much speculation the coalition governments  long awaited draft national planning policy framework (NPPF) was released this week.


The document has come in for a wide range of criticism from many sources, notably that it will encourage reckless sprawl and a resurgence of out of town retail and office developments. While concerns also exist over vague wording which some experts warn could result in developers taking advantage of the system . This  perhaps forgetting that this is only a draft document in a plan led system with local plans the starting point in the determination of any planning application.


The document through the core planning principles listed on page 5 expands upon the values of sustainable development engrained during the previous administration, although it is in parts vague this could be a blessing as local authorities (and planners) are given greater power to draw up the future of there own districts, with considerably less top-down restrictions.


The document is simple, but it also promotes many of the core planning values which have emerged over the last 10 years, notably creating mixed use communities, encouraging good design responding to local character and supporting a low carbon economy.


This document represents a major shift in UK planning policy replacing almost 1000 words of policy with just 50 and it will be at least another 5-10 years before any sound judgement upon the effects of this shift can be made.


Consultation of the document ends in October.

Ensuring a Sustainable Future?

It was revealed last week that the UK population grew at its fastest rate for over half a century.


Between june 2009 and 2010 the countries population grew by 470,000 people, roughly the same number of people who live in Liverpool. Yet unless I have missed it, a new city hasn't risen out of the ground. So where are these people living?


Just over half of the 470,000 rise can be attributed to natural change, (The difference between births and deaths). This figure was 134,000 higher than the figure 10 years ago. Just under half of this rise were immigrants, leaving  around 200,000 extra people needing accommodation in a country where over the last 10 years house completions have continually decreased and where in many communities there is a strong resistance to any new development.


The increase in immigrants can also be partly used to explain the natural rise with 200,000 extra women of child baring age residing in the UK compared to 10 years ago.


At the other end of the scale the amount of people over the age of 85 has doubled from 600,000 in 1981 to 1.4 million today. Bringing its own problems of housing and care provision.


The result of this is record house prices, increasing number of people in their late 20s early 30s are now opting to rent and there is a council house waiting list of 1.75 million people. (The Times)


The coalition governments Draft national planning policy framework which is set to be released later this month aims to change the balance in favour of developers. Although this will give housebuilding a kickstart the policy could result in a increase in greenfield and greenbelt development, while current sustainability guidelines ensuring  new developments have access to public transport or walking and cycling routes to shops or places of work, will be ignored. Acording to the Times 'Councils will be unable to reject developments unless they can prove that the impacts would be so severe that they would outweigh the urgent need for new homes' (1).


90% (2) of the UK is currently open space, a fact perhaps forgotten in the overcrowded south east. While the density of Northern Cities such as Sheffield (3,942 people per Km2)  and  (Scottish) Glasgow (3,171) is very low when compared to Greater London at 5,099 people per sq km,and  there is a good supply of brownfield land in many of these places ready and waiting to be developed.


In 20 years the children born today will be wanting to fly there own nest;  it is crucial that for there sake at least the country has a proactive planning system and a ready supply of homes available and perhaps the new policy will result in a more sustainable long-term future.


(1)Webster B (1/7/2011) Planning rules pave way for greenbelt bonaza, The Times, London
(2)Pennington M (2/7/2011) Loosen your Greenbelt become a BIMBY, The Times, London