1

Design in the new London Plan

Views from the design community

2

Contents Page

Introduction p.3

Recommendations p.5

Event Details p.7

Event Takeaways p.10

Further Notes p.19

3

Introduction

This document sets out evidence gathered from across the design community through a

series of debates and consultative events hosted by Urban Design London during 2016.

The specific details of these events alongside the views and ideas of participants are set out

below; over 600 people attended including representatives from all the London Boroughs as

well as from forty five private sector organisations and thirty six expert speakers.

The London Plan is a vital document for the city; setting out strategic and spatial aspirations

and how the city will change physically, socially, economically and environmentally.

Although many of the drivers for change are not within the power of a plan to control, the

policies and concepts it sets out will have a marked influence on the shape and quality of the

city.

The first London Plan was influenced by the then Government’s Urban Task Force report

Towards an Urban Renaissance,1999. This set out a clear vision for compact, characterful

urban areas where people could live without reliance on the private car and celebrate the

benefits of living near, and sharing, services and facilities with others.

The approach flowed through many policies, and helped reverse urban decay, bringing new

investment and interest to well connected areas of London that had much to offer but were

being overlooked. The approach helped to introduce new types of buildings, such as blocks

of flats, creative approaches to mixing up land uses, streets that started to fulfil the role of

parks, not just thoroughfares, different investment models and what seemed, at the time, like

a very ‘continental’ idea of pavement café’s, which some thought would never catch on.

We can see the reality of the Urban Renaissance all around our city, particularly in central

and inner London. Now the city faces new challenges, specifically accommodating an

increasing population and the affordability of homes for Londoners. Alongside these are

concerns over public health, equality, and our ability to appropriately look after our air, water

and natural environment.

So, however successful the Compact City approach of the first London Plan has been,

simply continuing with this approach does not seem the responsible way to plan. We need a

4

Compact City Plus approach, tailored to help the 60+% of London, and Londoners who don’t

live in well-connected, well-serviced urban neighbourhoods.

New policies must respond to todays’ challenges and opportunities and ensure the drive

and vision to provide more and increasingly affordable homes do not push out the need for

those homes, and the neighbourhoods within which they sit, to be of high quality and

capable of meeting the challenges not just for today, but for the future too.

The next London Plan must address the difficult task of foreseeing how transport, working,

investment and development trends and pressures will morph, ensuring its policies manage

growth and change responsibly.

And of course, the next London plan must work constructively with the National Planning

Policy Framework, defining what the overarching national policies mean for London.

The consultative events recorded in this paper do not look at ideas for the entirety of the

Plan, but focus on its tricky policy areas, such as managing development density and tall

buildings.

The takeaways and event notes provided below set out many different ideas. They

represent a cross section of opinions; these are neither well-developed nor likely to be

wholly supported by all across the industry. The intention is for the GLA to find and advance

useful nuggets within this note to further develop, test and discuss as they move towards a

first draft of the next London Plan.

5

Recommendations

Attending all consultative events, the UDL team recorded consistent themes and

ideas that over-arched the sessions; we set these out below as five core

considerations that must be kept in mind as the London Plan is drafted.

The London Plan must:

1. Be clear about the vision of what London will be like and the contribution

that design and the built and green environment can and must make. The

Plan would greatly benefit from a strong central vision and idea that can be

expanded upon within individual policies. This may include:

Ensuring change brings with it improvements for places, people

and London as a whole

Basing policies on a people first approach, looking at what we as

people need form places and ensuring these form the basis for

the design, form and location of building development

Re-envisaging suburbs; a focus on Zone 2 and beyond

Harnessing technology to change the way we interact with the

city

Guaranteeing long-term quality over short-term numbers gain

2. Be more spatially intelligent – core policies nuanced for different types of

places and challenges. The Plan does not have to be a paper based book. It

could be map based, with policies relevant for different areas accessible

through locational choice. This will allow for policies to refer specifically to the

challenges and opportunities faced by different types of areas; for example

busy places with the potential to become overcrowded, disconnected places

that may feel remote and car dependant, and/or transformational places

undergoing wholescale change.

6

3. Be clear over what constitutes in built form terms, ‘sustainable

development’ for London. As the London Plan will be in general conformity

to the NPPF (including a presumption in favour of sustainable development) the

vague definition on what sustainable development is could be helpfully distinct

in the new London Plan, providing a clearer and more meaningful definition for

London. Performance thresholds could be set in a SPG and should consider

including minimum and/or maximum levels for:

How much light should penetrate into homes

Accepted amounts of wind turbulence around buildings, taking

into account ‘comfort levels’

Noise pollution and the role of sound insulation in reducing this

4. Be clear about the link between the form of development, the

characteristics of the place where they sit and importantly, meeting public

policy objectives. Central to the Plans’ design policies is the relationship

between the way they colour the form of what gets built where, the bones of

any planning application; the type of place this creates within and beyond the

red line of a planning application, its characteristics, performance and role; and

in turn how this helps deliver public policy objectives from crime prevention to

inclusion, better public health to housing equality. By presenting design and

built environment policies around these three connected aspects, the Plan will

avoid repetition and give a clear idea of why particular development forms are

acceptable.

5. Be crafted to ensure policies are clear, consistent and equally applied. A

focus on enabling Londoners to understand policies, for decision makers to

reliably and confidently approve development proposals and for Londoners to

grasp the vision of how their city will look and feel is vital for the next London

Plan.

7

Event Details

During the summer and autumn of 2016 UDL organised 7 events around the general

title: ‘What Should the London Plan say about Design’. These events were devised

following discussions and advice from the GLA and two of the events were specific

GLA consultation sessions (13th Oct and 16th Nov).

The sessions were held to help develop ideas on policy options and approaches to

help the GLA as they take forward their work on the next London Plan. The first 5

sessions covered, in turn, key design and built environment policy areas. They

followed a similar format with first an explanation of what the current policies on the

topic say, then a discussion on how people

find using these, how they work well, not so

well and how people thought they could be

improved or radically altered.

UDL members where able to book onto any

of the events, this meant they were free to

attend for anyone from a London Borough,

TfL, the GLA, a number of housing

associations operating in London, the

Metropolitan police, the Environment

Agency and so on. In addition special

invitations were sent to architects,

developers, urban and landscape designers

and other design practitioners and interest

groups.

Overall, 614 people attended the sessions,

from 93 organisations including all 33

London local authorities.

Events

The London Plan and the Built

Environment

7th June 2016

The London Plan and Tall Buildings

28th June 2016

Ways to Intensify Suburbs

13th July 2016

Density Policies & the Density

Matrix

22nd September 2016

The London Plan’s ‘Greening’

Policies

11th October 2016

What Should the London Plan say

about Design?

13th October 2016

What Should the London Plan say

about Design Workshop

16th November 2016

8

Organisations Represented at the Events

Affinity Sutton Alan Paul Thompson Amanda Reynolds Urbanism

Better Bankside BID Buro Happold Catalyst Housing

Centre for London Circle Housing Group City of London

City of Westminster Countryside Properties CPRE

Create Streets DCLG DSDHA

Environment Agency Epping Forest DC Erbar Mattes

Farrells Frame Projects Greater London Authority

GreenBlue Urban ltd Historic England Historic Environment Training

HTA Hyde Housing Association IBI Group

Jane Briginshaw Associates LB Barking & Dagenham LB Barnet

LB Bexley LB Brent LB Bromley

LB Camden LB Croydon LB Ealing

LB Enfield LB Hackney LB Hammersmith & Fulham

LB Haringey LB Harrow LB Havering

LB Hillingdon LB Hounslow LB Islington

LB Lambeth LB Lewisham LB Merton

LB Newham LB Redbridge LB Richmond

LB Southwark LB Sutton LB Tower Hamlets

LB Waltham Forest LB Wandsworth Levitt Bernstein

London Forum Metropolitan Police Mott MacDonald

Notting Hill Housing OPDC Peter Barber Architects

Place Agency Pocket Living Poplar Harca

Purcell RB Greenwich RB Kingston

RB Kensington & Chelsea Refolo Landscape Architects RIBA

Secured by Design Simon Crane Architects Slough Borough Council

Space Syntax Southern Housing Group Steer Davies Gleave

Sustrans The Ecology Consultancy Think Place

Tibbalds Transport for London Transport Initiatives

TSI University College London University of Westminster

Urban Movement Van Bruggen Urban Design Watford Borough Council

WCDG Weston Williams & Partners Woodland Trust

9

Delegates by Sector

Speakers at the Events

Adrian Cole, Steer Davies & Gleave Holly Lewis, We Made That

Aliasgar Inayathusien, TfL Jane Briginshaw, JB Associates

Andy Von Bradsky, PRP Jennifer Peters, GLA

Annemarie de Boom, Studio Real Gillian Horn, Penoyre & Prasad

Brendan Cuddihy, Arup John Hare, Miller Hare

Brian Deegan, TfL Julia Park, Levitt Bernstein

Bruce McVean, TfL Kat Hanna, Centre for London

Chris Twinn, TSL Kevin Barton, Robert Bray Associates

David Jowsey, TfL Laura Putt, TfL

David McDonald, Heritage Consultant Liz Wrigley, Core

Deborah Saunt, DSDHA Martin Hubbard, Metropolitan Police

Dr Riette Oosthuizen, HTA Mathew Frith, London Wildlife Trust

Duncan Bowie, University of Westminster Matthew Carmona, UCL

Eime Tobari, Space Syntax Michael Bach, London Forum

Elliot Kemp, GLA Neil Smith, BuroHappold

Euan Mills, GLA Peter Massini, GLA

George Weeks, TfL Sue Vincent, UDL

Harriet Glenn, Crossrail 2 Vinita Dhume, Levitt Bernstein

10

Event Takeaways

UDL produces single sheet summaries of events held. These act as an aid

memoir for those who attended, and an overview of the topics covered for those

who did not.

The Takeaways normally consist of 5 important points voiced at the session, plus

a list of the speakers.

The next few pages include the takeaways form the London plan sessions.

11

TAKEAWAYS FROM

Policy Symposium: The London Plan and the Built Environment

7th June 2016

1. The London Plan needs a new clear vision of what London should be like physically in 10-15 years

time. This requires a strategic political lead as well as open, honest and informed debate about the future

character of London. Without this, design related policies may not be effective.

2. It is important that the next Plan responds to current and emerging trends. In terms of design this might

mean specific policies for higher-density development, responding to changes in the national planning system,

or how to design places that make the best use of technological advances.

3. The London Plan should consider places and developments spatially and three dimensionally. As well

as having numerical targets and generic typology approaches, the Plan needs to recognise how the city works

physically and explain how this should evolve.

4. Built environment policies in the Plan should avoid repetition and should include key design

principles and indicate required characteristics of development. A new set of policies that start with a

statement on the role of good design in meeting the Plan’s overarching objectives, the place qualities

developments should look to achieve and how these relate to specific issues (e.g. crime prevention, inclusion

or historic conservation) would be useful.

5. London Plan policies should look at the processes of achieving good design as well as the built

outcomes. This could relate to promotion of design review as part of development management as well as

the use of area assessments and local three dimensional and parameter models to steer development.

6. Lack of coherence in the London Plan’s built environment and design policies shows a failure within

this lobby to draw together and offer a coherent message. More should be done to discuss, develop and

test policy options that can be clearly understood and responded to by plan makers.

Discussion Leads:

Michael Bach, London Forum of Civic Society Matthew Carmona, UCL Martin Hubbard, Met. Police David McDonald, Heritage Consultant Euan Mills, GLA Neil Smith, Buro Happold

Attendees: 57

Image Source: GLA

12

TAKEAWAYS FROM

Policy Symposium: The London Plan and Tall Buildings

28th June 2016

1. London should be clear about the role of tall buildings, what they offer and what they can not achieve. A realistic, evidence based assessment of the pros and cons of building tall should underpin policies. This should include understanding of the quantum and type of housing, work and amenity spaces they can provide, their impact on development potential surrounding them and their role in securing investment and using land resourcefully.

2. Once we are clear on the role of tall buildings we can better consider where they should (or should

not) go. We can look at tall buildings as a growth tool and we can look at them as a threat to character and heritage, but we should be considering both together, spatially. Use of a 3D planning model was advocated.

3. The practical challenges building tall presents should be acknowledged and managed though the

London Plan. From microclimate to waste collection, service charges to window cleaning, delivery and parking needs, tall buildings should not be constructed without ensuring they will function well without unacceptable disruption. Research and production of planning guidance was advocated.

4. Tall buildings are vertically dense forms of development and this should be recognised and managed. Stacking floorspace means people have to move vertically. This changes how they meet and interact with each other and funnels activity to a limited number of entrances, putting pressure on adjacent public realm, transport and services. These issues should be properly addressed by policy.

5. Planning polices should recognise the emotions tall buildings can generate and provide a framework for engaged decision making. Because they can dramatically alter the look and feel of areas and the city as a whole, they need to be especially carefully dealt with. One option is to have a presumption in favour of non-tall proposals, with higher buildings only approved after passing a specific assessment regime. Discussion Leads: Annemarie de Boom Studio Real Vinita Dhume Levitt Bernstein John Hare Miller Hare Elliot Kemp GLA Esther Kurland UDL Chris Twinn Twinn Sustainability Innovation

Attendees: 127

Image Source: Guardian

13

TAKEAWAYS FROM

Ways to Intensify Suburbs

13th July 2016

1. London needs to build homes fast, but these need to work well with their neighbours and

neighbourhoods. Using a variety of housing types we can successfully build in different suburban contexts.

2. We can intensify through increments, taking opportunities to use land better but not radically change

an area all at once. The structure of many suburbs means there are under used spaces which could be

intelligently used to provide more homes without destroying an area’s character.

3. We need to dovetail more homes with more services, assessing what is available and finding the most

pragmatic places and ways to increase this in line with growing populations. Pressure on existing

services is a sure way to create resistance for growth locally. By diversifying population mix and therefore

varying the demand on services we can make facilities work harder and smarter.

4. Avoid intense sprawl. One of the downsides of suburbs is limited geographic access to services and a

reliance on cars to get around. Having convenient access to a wide range of land uses will reduce journey

times for cars and incentivise people to take alternative modes of transport.

5. We need to change suburbs so they do not look and feel like the car is king. If it is not visually clear that

walking, cycling and public transport are the priority modes, people will be less likely to switch from the car.

Improving the design, desire lines and safety of crossings, junctions and links for pedestrians and cyclists is a

must.

6. To successfully plan for suburban intensification we need to use better geographic and connectivity

assessment tools. New systems such as WebCAT allow us to measure and compare journey opportunities

by time, route and mode alongside non transport service provision, catchment areas and the location of

amenities.

Speakers: Duncan Bowie, University of Westminster Adrian Cole, SDG Brian Deegan, TfL Harriet Glen, Crossrail 2 Kat Hanna, Centre for London Aliasgar Inayathusein, TfL Bruce McVean, TfL Julia Park, Levitt Bernstein George Weeks, TfL

Attendees: 90

Image Source: Transport For London

14

TAKEAWAYS FROM

Policy Symposium: Density Policies & Density Matrix

22nd September 2016

1. We need to be clear about what we want our city to be like and then develop the policies to help

achieve this. A difficult proposition, especially within the envelope of a housing target-led planning system,

but robust policies that explain what will, and will not be acceptable in terms of form and quality would help.

2. Should density be an input to, or output from, planning? In other words should particular site densities be

created by meeting other planning requirements or should they be the starting point for any proposal.

3. Residents like, or dislike, a place because of its design and intrinsic characteristics, not because of its

density. Places that give people the opportunity to live well both inside and outside the home, which provide

good access to a range of interesting things to do and space conducive to enjoying the company of

neighbours, are most successful. In London, we need to improve how we deliver these characteristics at

higher densities.

4. New ways of understanding and mapping places should be used to enrich our density policies. This

should include understanding of local movement patterns and barriers, jobs and land uses and the position

and capacity of a range of services and infrastructure, not just public transport.

5. Can one density matrix be both a strategic planning tool and support the determination of individual

planning applications? By combining the roles it may not be providing the best tool for either.

6. The existing density policy is used and is considered useful but has limitations. It is seen as a useful

element of SHLAAs, site appraisals and negotiations, but around half of permissions are granted for schemes

outside its ranges, which greatly dilutes its effectiveness.

Discussion Leads: Michael Bach, London Forum Andy Von Bradsky , PRP Architects Jane Briginshaw, Jane Briginshaw Associates Brendan Cuddihy, Arup David Jowsey, TfL Elliot Kemp, GLA Dr Riette Oosthuizen, HTA Laura Putt, TfL Dr Eime Tobari, Space Syntax Marcus Wilshere, IBI Group Liz Wrigley, Core Connections

Attendees: 81

Image Source: Space Syntax

15

TAKEAWAYS FROM

Policy Symposium: The London Plan’s ‘Greening’ Policies

11th October 2016

1. London Plan policies on nature and green infrastructure should be less polite and more focused. In general people feel the existing policies say good things, however, wording that gives the impression that protecting or creating green infrastructure and biodiversity is a ‘nice to have’ should be strengthened. This would prevent the policies from being overlooked.

2. The London Plan could take the opportunity to set out very clearly the role of nature in an ever growing London. Stressing the importance of green infrastructure to the success of a compact city and explaining how ‘greening’ policies should sit alongside and support other priorities would help clarify the world of green infrastructure that can be opaque for the uninitiated.

3. Better spatial and performance information could improve provision. The London Plan might like to ensure planners and others can easily access geographical information; for example, both the location of catchment areas and how well each is managing water.

4. Water management should be part and parcel of place management. Systems that store water, preferably close to where it first enters the local system, should be a basic element of any building or open space.

5. Natural and green infrastructure management could benefit from a clearer set of definitions, objectives and policy tools. For example, heritage conservation uses a system of asset designation, from individual buildings to whole areas, and uses a concept of understanding the significance and setting for each. The designation of a tree, space and/or habitat of importance is less clear, and does not cover changes to the areas around each.

Discussion Leads: Kevin Barton

Robert Bray Associates

Matthew Frith

London Wildlife Trust

Peter Massini

GLA

Attendees: 88

Image Source: GLA

16

TAKEAWAYS FROM

What Should the London Plan say about Design?

13th October 2016

1. A new London Plan is a wonderful opportunity, and it should set out what London should be like and

the role of the built environment in achieving this. It should be stronger and clearer about the need for

quality and more ambitious and imaginative in envisaging physical change in the city.

2. The Plan should focus on the process of achieving good design and excellent places, not just say that

this is needed. This should reflect emerging planning processes, regulations and funding and partnership

approaches. The London Plan should ensure that what is built meets the Plan’s objectives.

3. The balance of space given to different issues should be carefully considered and recalibrated. For

example, there are many more pages on view management than on the design quality of all types of

development in all areas.

4. The Plan should set out the basic place characteristics and performance thresholds needed to create

‘sustainable development’ (NPPF) and successful places. Requirements for issues like the width of

pavements, the amount of light penetrating homes and how cold and windy amenity spaces are should be

specified and adhered to.

5. London is a diverse city, with waves of development pressures, trends and place related

challenges. The Plan should respond to this, with policies that support both traditional and emerging

development types, from good suburban evolution to managing the most compact of neighbourhoods.

6. The Plan should not shy away from discussing creativity, beauty and innovation. It should set the

foundations for good growth without stiffening London’s ability to morph and respond to changing

circumstances and demands.

Discussion Leads: Matthew Carmona, UCL Gillian Horn, Penoyre & Prasad Esther Kurland, UDL Holly Lewis, We Made That Julia Park, Levitt Bernstein Jennifer Peters, GLA Deborah Saunt, DSDHA Sue Vincent, UDL / LB Camden

Attendees: 102

Image Source: Levitt Bernstein

17

TAKEAWAYS FROM

What Should the London Plan say about Design Workshop

16th November 2016

1. Design policies need to explain why what they require is important, not just say it is needed. The link between policy requirements, the types of place they help to create and their role in delivering core objectives of growth, fairness and health should be clearly made.

2. Current London Plan design policies do not cover the things attendees highlighted as most important. In particular the Plan should say more on public space as an integral part of any growth strategy, and as a frame for community, private and working life.

3. Design should be centered on human needs and human experiences. The concept of starting with the person, then the space and finally the building was strongly advocated.

4. Building and place performance should be better managed. Acceptable thresholds for issues such as wind, skyviews and noise were advocated; although there were different opinions on whether this should be through design codes, guidance or other means.

5. Change, and growth, should make places better, with improved access to services, amenity and

enhanced identity. Particularly for suburban areas, change should help rectify isolation, inefficiencies and lack of vibrancy, without undermining local aspirations and values.

Facilitators: Elliot Kemp, GLA James Keogh, GLA Levent Kerimol, GLA Esther Kurland, UDL Jennifer Peters, GLA Andrew Russell, GLA Sue Vincent, UDL / LB Camden

Attendees: 69

Image Source: Urban Design London

18

Further Notes

Where possible UDL drafted more comprehensive notes following the events. These

included more information on what was said, ideas raised and in some cases

discussion on the pros and cons of different policy options. These notes are

reproduced below.

19

The London Plan and the Built Environment Suggestions for the Future Briefing Note from UDL Policy Symposium, 7th June 2016

Discussion Leads: Michael Bach, Chairman, London Forum of Civic Society Matthew Carmona, Professor of Planning and Urban Design, The Bartlett (UCL) Martin Hubbard, Police Sergeant, Metropolitan Police Service David McDonald, Heritage Consultant Euan Mills, Senior Strategic Planner, Greater London Authority Neil Smith, Head of Inclusive Design, BuroHappold

This session invited people to offer observations, comments and suggestions concerning the

way the London Plan (Chapter 7) deals with placemaking, architecture, heritage, inclusive

design, lifetime homes and designing out crime. Similar sessions will be held to discuss

other built environment issues.

Inevitably, we could not keep just to the topics under discussion, as they relate to the major

issues of growth, density and so on. So some points below refer to these general issues

too.

Summary of Suggestions

The London Plan needs a new, clear vision of what London should be like in 10-15

years time, for whom, and how the unavoidable trade offs that form the bedrock of

planning should be undertaken. This requires a strategic political lead and open,

honest and informed debate about the future character of London. Policy formulation

should follow form this lead, with planning practitioners looking at how best to meet it

and engagement with Londoners to develop shared agreement.

The Plan could be spatially rather than thematically organised. Using a family of

area/neighbourhood/place typologies was suggested. Each could have a suite of

policies, presented together, covering all issues for that type of place, and setting out

appropriate qualities, functions and requirements by place type. This would allow for

20

better understanding of the cross overs between built environment/design related

policies and other objectives for areas. The Roads Task Force Street Type Family

could be a useful reference for such work.

The Plan should clearly articulate its twin roles of setting policies for strategic

planning decisions and empowering boroughs to plan well. This might mean having

more than two sets of policies relating to decisions and local plan preparation, but

also mean considering the processes and resources required to support consistent

planning activity and a responsible and robust approach to built environment quality,

across all boroughs. This may not be formal London Plan content, but is needed to

support the implementation of policies.

The Plan should go further in managing the chicken and egg conundrum of housing

growth and the services a growing community needs. The density/PTAL relationship

has been extremely successful, and expanding it to relate to assessing accessibility

to non-transport services would be welcomed. But alongside this approach (of

locating growth so it can make the best use of existing and planned services) the

Plan should look at how to ensure adequate services for all communities, and not

relegate those living in poorly-served areas to stagnation. This is a fundamental part

of good placemaking – places which provide a good quality of life through easy

access to a wide range of local services, and could support an ‘evolving suburbs’

approach to growth.

It is important that the next Plan responds to current and emerging trends. In terms

of design this might mean:

o Considering policies around higher-density development and neighbourhoods

o How to work within the changing national planning system (especially

Permission in Principle and automatic changes of use i.e. permitted

development rights for change of use)

o How to design places to best accommodate and make use of technological

changes and resulting living, travel and working practices

o Considering how to influence the management of both ‘public’ spaces and

buildings so there is consistent, appropriate approach which supports good

placemaking, living conditions and social health. That is, ensuring all

21

investors take seriously their long-term responsibility for the places and

communities they are effecting

The London Plan should consider places in three dimensions; spatially. In terms of

town centres, it should look at what happens behind the main high street shop

facades and consider the hinterland and the centre’s zone of influence and support.

Such an approach should consider the transport, public realm, employment,

environmental quality, heritage value, leisure and community services, inclusion,

safety, and public health aspects of the centre as well as the homes it can

accommodate.

Lack of coherence in built environment policies to date shows a failure of the built

environment lobby to draw together and offer a coherent message that can be clearly

heard and responded to by plan makers.

Suggestions on Specific Design Related Policies

Urban Design & Placemaking:

The quality of London’s built environment contributes towards ‘sickness’ and

‘wellbeing’ in society. These could be personal and community isolation, crime, fear,

ill health, poverty, low productivity, pessimism and reduced investment, but also

vibrancy, well-connected communities, civic inclusion and pride, economic vitality,

innovation and so on. The London Plan has a duty to work towards creating and

maintaining a built environment that accentuates the positive and minimises the

negative. This could be articulated more clearly within its suit of policies.

The way the built environment policies are set out at the moment, under rather

misleading and singular titles, does not offer a clear and coherent approach to

accentuating the positive attributes and minimising the negative, from the point

above. They do not project a clear vision for the future development of the character

of London. Instead they appear to relate more to specific interests and lobby group

foci. As such there is significant overlap within their wording and little cross-

checking between their potentially conflicting, or supporting, requirements.

22

Although the word ‘design’ is used many times in the London Plan, there is no one

key design policy. The London Plan could follow the lead of the NPPF and PPG, and

relate to both the 7 (or 8) place qualities that planning should be looking to achieve,

and then the aspects of form that make up individual building proposals and places.

This would ensure issues like the relationship between activities within and outside

buildings, i.e. the building/open space margin, could be dealt with in one place, not

within separate character, crime prevention, public realm and inclusion policies.

(UDL sets out a refreshed list in a forthcoming book; Design Primer for Planners, an

update for By Design due to be published at the end of 2016)

A new set of design-related policies could relate to the place family typologies

suggested above. For example, specific requirements for high or medium-density

neighbourhoods could be articulated, with built environment policies covering issues

like the need for ‘breathing space’ in more intensively lived in areas and the need for

a ‘spatial activity focus’ in less dense areas.

Although issues of appearance, style and beauty can be difficult for planning to deal

with, especially if boroughs do not have enough skilled staff, the London Plan could

usefully say how such issues should be considered, and what their role is in

placemaking. It should not however specify ‘good’ and ‘bad’ styles and say

something about what new buildings and spaces in London should look and feel like.

The London Plan should have a dual focus, empowering boroughs to take place

quality seriously, but also providing a framework for Mayoral influenced

developments.

The relationship between land values, density, development viability and delivery and

the type of places that can and are being created is important for the London Plan to

recognise and inform.

Heritage:

The London Plan’s approach could be more specific about the overall character of

London and inform, at a strategic level, how heritage should be valued and managed

in the city. They could usefully relate to a new overarching description of London’s

heritage, its importance, value and role, and the relative significance of its different

23

aspects. This might go beyond looking at designated assets, but consider cultural

and social heritage and the role of variety and change within the city’s character.

Heritage policies should look at how we create the heritage for the future, not just

manage existing heritage, and relate to managing a changing city. This might mean

ensuring we don’t leave a legacy of cheap and nasty buildings which damage our

townscape and views.

It could be useful to look at the language of London – i.e. the built form language, not

spoken languages.

Heritage-related policies seem rather out of date. They should not repeat the NPPF.

They could relate more to London-specific issues, and respond to how viability

influences options in the city. For example, on one hand schemes might generate

enough income to pay for the retention and renovation of an historic asset, but on the

other hand the high value of land might make it more attractive to developers to

remove assets and redevelop sites fully. How such issues should be dealt with, and

the role of heritage in supporting high-quality placemaking and encouraging

investment, could be more fully explored in the London Plan. It was acknowledged

that development opportunities in London should enable developments to incorporate

or preserve heritage assets.

There is a feeling that the London Plan uses ‘weasel words’ that enable developers

to get around policies and that although the policies might say the right kind of thing,

in reality their implementation did not conform with the policy. This may be due to the

way the English planning system works at present, but it could be useful for the

London Plan to look carefully at how to have appropriate impact on planning

decisions.

There was some concern that archaeology policies do not always work well, but we

did not go into details.

In summary, suggestions included: re-use assets as a first option; have a clear

London dimension to policies; placemaking and heritage policies need to be brought

together; consider what effects our experience of heritage; have more emphasis on

how you manage change of Heritage sites.

24

Inclusive Design:

We first looked at issues around access to, and inclusive use of, homes. There was

some concern that changes to the system of standards had lead to confusion and a

downgrading of the importance of inclusive access in particular as people thought

meeting Part M of the Building Regulations was enough. Without access officers in

all boroughs looking at all applications, it was felt that more comprehensive

requirements were being ignored.

There was also concern that some of the Plan’s requirements, for example level

access for all homes, could make schemes unviable. It was explained that the policy

for all homes to have level access was an objective, and each case would be

assessed individually, and that most schemes did meet the requirement. It was

suggested that data as to when and how level access was achieved to back up the

policy might be very useful. A policy that people consider can be negotiated around

might not be the strongest or clearest way of setting out a requirement.

It was pointed out that as the vast majority of existing homes in London are not

accessible, it is important to ensure that as many as possible of new homes are

accessible to rebalance stock.

However there was concern about the impact of level access on options to optimise

the use of sites, particularly complex sites. Design options to ensure this does not

hinder approaches to placemaking, crime prevention and management of waste etc

might be useful to highlight. The impact of the need for lifts on building heights and

so the type of neighbourhoods created should be clearly understood.

It was clear that application of inclusion policies was patchy and the Plan could do

more to support implementation. The LLDC’s strategy was referenced as a good

example, where inclusive design is considered as a process, not a just a planning

policy.

Lifetime Neighbourhoods:

There was some confusion over this term, and for some a feeling that a broader idea

had somehow been reduced to Lifetime Homes and inclusive design requirements

25

for disabled people. Instead terms like ‘walkable neighbourhoods’, ‘live local’,

‘keeping life local’, ‘supporting an ageing population’, ‘accessible’ or ‘resilient’

neighbourhoods were mentioned as representing the type of policy that was needed.

It was also suggested that policy could better reflect the move toward localism set

down in the Localism Act and even the NPPF (Promoting Healthy Communities)

which focuses on planning for and safeguarding existing local community facilities.

This issue overlaps with the point made earlier about defining requirements,

priorities, structures and change for different types of area. Their definition should

underpin a good vision for London and should appear right at the front of the London

Plan.

It would be useful for the London Plan to find a way of ensuring neighbourhoods are

not to be seen as just about housing, and the number of new homes that can be

accommodated, but the structure and variety that can support local life, and ensure

better planned access to services such as primary health care, primary education,

shops, banks, post offices, leisure activities - the ingredients needed to make a good

neighbourhood.

Policy should not see neighbourhoods as static, but encompass how to manage

change within them, for example by ensuring buildings and spaces for community

facilities are designed to be flexible so they can morph to provide different uses over

time. Similarly neighbourhoods should provide homes that allow people to downsize

within their own communities

It was suggested that we look to learn by example, looking at the physical form and

mix of uses in successful neighbourhoods and investigating how they became and

remain as such.

Designing out Crime:

There is much good national and London specific guidance on designing out crime.

The Police are helping planners consider designing out crime principles for individual

schemes and following good design principles has helped to reduce crime levels

significantly, particularly burglaries by retrofitting problem estates.

26

However the type of crimes occurring in London have changed, as have housing

typologies, and this might be contributing to new challenges such as a rise in anti-

social behaviour in public spaces. The London Plan, and associated guidance,

should respond to changing patterns of crime and social malaise.

The importance of defensible space, buffer zones, lighting and appropriate boundary

treatments were mentioned as ways of combating anti-social behaviour. Level

changes can support defensible space but would need to also take into account level

access requirements.

It was not entirely clear why there is a separate designing out crime policy, as its

contents are really about good urban design, which can support a number of

objectives, including crime reduction. It might be more appropriate for the London

Plan to spell out the process of involving designing out crime experts and the use of

specific guidance.

The question of whether the London Plan could, or should, look to influence the

management of places was raised. How this is undertaken, from who lives where for

how long, to how lighting and cleaning takes place, has a significant impact on crime

levels and the fear of crime. How can planning help with this?

Conclusion

Revising the London Plan provides an opportunity to improve the way it deals with

built environment design.

Its policy approach should be informed by a clear description of what London should

be like, for whom and how potential conflict between policies should be dealt with.

The London Plan could usefully look at different structures for the development,

presentation and implementation of policies. One idea suggested, there will be

alternatives, was to focus the London Plan around a family of place types as this

could reduce repetition and allow for clearer articulation of sets of policies that need

to work together.

27

Instead of the current set of slightly confusing single objective design/built

environment related policies, there could be an overarching set of design policies

which relate to:

o The policy objectives good design can deliver, to include, but not be

limited to, protection and valuing of historic environment, distinctive

character, inclusion, public health and crime prevention i.e. the things that

make London ‘sick’ or ‘successful’ which can be influenced by the design

and quality of the built environment.

o The common characteristics of well-designed places, which support

meeting these objectives, as explained in PPG (character, legibility,

flexibility, defensibility, efficiency, diversity, easy to use etc.)

o Requirements for aspects of form, the things in a planning application,

(density, height, layout, materials etc.) which will support creation of these

characteristics and so help ensure the policy objectives are met.

It would be useful for the built environment industry; the various lobby groups, and

those with more general built environment interests, to consider options for the next

London Plan, and the interaction between their objectives, together.

28

The London Plan and Tall Buildings Suggestions for the Future Briefing Note from UDL Policy Symposium, 28th June 2016

Discussion Leads: Annemarie de Boom, Director, Studio Real Vinita Dhume, Associate , Levitt Bernstein John Hare, Director, Miller Hare Elliot Kemp, Senior Strategic Planner, GLA Esther Kurland, Director, UDL (Chair) Chris Twinn, Founder, Twinn Sustainability Innovation

These notes are split into four sections:

1. What is the role of tall buildings in London? What can they offer us? How should

we plan where they should, or should not go?

2. The microclimatic and resource use of tall building proposals

3. Tall buildings as a form of super, or hyper dense development, and what this

means for users

4. The relationship between the management of cityscape and views and the location

and shape of tall building proposals

The aim of the debate, and these notes, is to provide ideas on how London Plan policies on

the topic could evolve, based on an understanding of how current policies are working.

At the end of the notes there is one suggestion for policy direction. It may not be the best

one, certainly would not be the only option, but it is presented to help the conversation.

29

1. What is the role of tall buildings in London? What can they offer us? How

should we plan where they should, or should not go?

Before delving into the complexities of tall building planning policies, it is worth taking a step

back and considering what the role of such structures should be for London. Is it about

accommodating new homes and office floor-space in intensely used and active areas? Is it

about pulling in investment and offering a product that is viable and attractive for

developers? Is it about changing the appearance and character of London and so its

perceived ‘offer’ to the rest of the world?

Without discussing these fundamental issues, it is hard to consider the details of individual

policies. The current London Plans approach links tall buildings to the compact city

approach, seeing them as a way of increasing density at highly accessible points. We were

shown a map (see below) illustrating the general overlap of the CAZ and town centres

(yellow), opportunity areas (grey outline), PTAL’s 4-6 (orange) and tall buildings (black dots).

However the debate threw up the question of whether these denser, higher residential

buildings were actually creating the type of homes London wants and needs. The

economics of building taller buildings with its higher service charges may not necessarily

optimise the housing opportunities available to working Londoners. The London Plan team

might like to look at evidence at who is living in new tall residential developments, and how

this might change in the future.

30

Questions were also raised as to whether building tall was in fact the best way of using well

serviced land, or whether other forms, such as mid rise blocks, offer a better solution. This

debate has been ongoing for some time now, and the GLA may find their research on

density helpful in informing the conversation. To optimise the use of midrise in delivering

floor-space, a hard look at the standards that might be restricting this could be useful. It is

probably that in some cases low to medium rise will be the best option, in others tall towers,

and elsewhere a combination of both.

If the purpose of tall buildings is about offering a development option that is attractive to

certain developers, then a good hard look at whether this is sensible long term approach

would be welcomed. It seems to some that the implementation of current policy, i.e. the

grant of planning permissions, seems at odds with the actual wording of policies. It may be

that pressure through the national planning system, a drive to pull out of the recession and

other factors mean that in practice this objective is more active than it seems when reading

the Plan.

Finally, if we want tall buildings to alter the perception of our city, then that deserves a robust

public and political debate.

Once we are clear on what we want from tall buildings, the plan can consider where they

should, or should not go and how this is to be determined. At the moment we have a

combination of sieve analysis based mapping in some parts of London and a lineal link

between identified areas for development and the use of tall buildings elsewhere. This has

lead to a rather confusing approach in reality, with some using growth as a starting point and

others protection of historic assets, views and townscape. A way of ensuring the two meet

up in a more pragmatic fashion could be useful.

At the moment we do not use 3D models to help us in locational planning for tall buildings.

As we will see later, view management policies create invisible restrictive zones in the air,

between which tall building proposals come forward. Better understanding of the three

dimensional landscape, and policy implications for it, would greatly help us understand what

we are doing.

There was also a feeling that masterplanning could be better used to support good tall

development, and prevent bad. 3D planning/city modelling could show areas likely to have

pressure for tall buildings, partly because of the spatial impact of a variety of planning

31

policies. Then attention can be given to looking at the actual size, position and role of taller

structures in that area.

Discussion continued that London Plan should make a greater distinction between “dense”

and “tall” – i.e. the CAZ / PTAL / town centre plan should indicate areas for building dense,

whereas “tall” is appropriate and relevant to townscape, views and “image” – and should be

much more subject to urban form context – as not much correlation between these is

currently suggested.

So all in all, the current London Plan is not very clear on the purpose of tall buildings for

London and how we should be considering their spatial distribution. A simplistic assumption

that they are a way of creating ever increasing densities and so are the thing to do in an

increasing category of areas is probably not serving the city as well as strategic policies

should be. It was very interesting that people seemed to generally like the existing policies,

thought they said the right thing, but then did not think they were working well, blaming the

way they are implemented. It could be argued that policies that are not well implemented

are not the right policies.

2. The microclimatic and resource use of tall building proposals

We were given a very interesting presentation listing the microclimatic and resource use

issues the London plan does not cover at the moment. There was a clear view in the room

that more should be done on this topic, maybe an SPG to give detail on how to assess what.

Also stronger policies that explain a safe and pleasant environment around tall buildings,

and sufficient daylight into the building, are essential, not just nice to haves. In the same

way as the view management policies provide very detailed, mathematical thresholds which

are highly influential of the shape and position of tall buildings, so too should these other

physical requirements.

As well as policy setting acceptability thresholds and guidance explaining how to test against

this, there was a call for training and support for borough planners so they can understand

and assess these issues better.

The issues this suite of policy, guidance and training should cover included an overhaul of

local wind assessments, to include consideration of the significant temperature reductions at

pedestrian level around tall buildings, plus street pollution flushing effects, all areas that are

important for amenity for those living or working in or around the buildings. Consideration is

32

required at the initial design stage on what minimum daylight levels we want inside a building

alongside how can we properly tackle overheating homes, particularly given the frequent

loss of cross-ventilation in higher density buildings. Planning also has a key role in directing

which methods are used for subsequent regulatory assessment, given the current Part L

distortions which lead to undue high dependence on energy intensive mechanical solutions.

There was also significant concern over the way we deal with the cumulative effect of a

number of tall structures in an area. Our system does not allow us to hold on to the issues

and consider them all at the same time, while precedent can significantly degrade

cumulative outcomes. Issues like daylight, sunlight and wind are by their nature borrowed

effects from outside individual sites. Others, like Urban Heat Island Mitigation and Climate

Resilience, and how they could be mutually complimentary, are accumulative benefits so

most often lost for individual buildings. There was a concern with regard to tall buildings

significantly increasing embodied energy, yet with the right guidance this could be countered

by reconsidering longevity of buildings.

Overall it was clear that we are not dealing with these issues well enough, we currently have

a ‘box-ticking’ approach to building tall, discouraging innovation, and not encouraging

consideration of actual performance in use. We are potentially letting a lot of people down

and storing up problems for the future. However, developing new policy and guidance in this

area will not be easy, there are disagreements over the ‘facts’ and ‘standards’, so for the

GLA to take this forward for the next London Plan, an expert steering group for the topic

might be useful.

3. Tall buildings as a form of super, or hyper dense development, and what this

means for users

We discussed what it is like for individuals and communities to live, work or set up

businesses in dense areas. The potential benefits are vibrant and active areas; however,

the pitfalls have been creating isolated, mono-communities, poor quality public realm and

inefficient and expensive servicing requirements.

Much of this comes down to good masterplanning. Not, as the word suggests, an

authoritarian and inflexible blue print for an area, but a 3 dimensional, evolving framework

within which proposals can be considered and tested.

33

We were asked early on in the session whether we should be treating all ‘tall buildings’ i.e.

those over 10 stories, the same. Some felt that yes we should, because they all had the

same issues in terms of how they met the ground, their relationship with neighbours, impact

on local public realm and streets etc. But at the same time the impact of a 50 storey building

is going to be very different from a 10 storey one. Maybe the same issues require

consideration but at different scales of intensity and impact.

We discussed the idea of a building being broken down and assessed on its component

parts – the important street frontage treatment and separately the parapet/plinth and ‘tower’

element as these are seen and experienced differently depending on distance/views, heights

and widths of street and skyline availability.

This comes down to urban design and place management and how these can deal with

medium, super and hyper density development. It was suggested at the last UDL Policy

Symposium (click here for Briefing Note), that the London Plan needs a much better urban

design policy, one that sets out the objectives being sought, from inclusion to safety,

resource efficiency to community cohesion, and then the type of built forms that support

achieving these objectives.

Such a policy could be as relevant for low rise and super tall development, although

nuances, and performance thresholds, for different types of development might be very

useful. For example, the need to ensure tall residential towers were designed in a way to

encourage community interaction and cohesion, and access to services, specifically

because the way people move around such buildings, using lifts, can cause isolation.

Similarly more stringent information and threshold requirements on service charges might be

needed for taller buildings, ensuring that there is a long term plan to generate enough

income to properly maintain the buildings without extortionate costs to individual residents.

Other key issues will be waste collection, consolidation of deliveries and local

movement/transport capacity (not just public transport, but walking and cycling too).

It should be possible to draw up a list of the practical, user orientated issues around

residential developments of different intensities. Some of these will be based on the

physical structure and quality of the area – its urban design – and some on ongoing

management. Some will, of course, overlap with the climatic issues in Section 2 above.

This might not necessarily be in a tall building policy, but could apply to tall buildings,

nuanced depending on both the net site and gross area densities that would be achieved.

34

4. The relationship between the management of cityscape and views and the

location and shape of tall building proposals.

One thing that is very particular about tall buildings is the ability to see them from afar. The

Plan manages visual impact through the London View Management Framework (LVMF) for

strategically important views, and policies that suggest boroughs take a similar approach for

locally important views. The methodology revolves around being able to see a particular

building from a particular spot or area and then drawing geometric air shapes to ensure the

view of that object is not blocked and what is seen around or behind it is considered.

This approach is generally well understood and consistently implemented, although some

practical issues, such as how to deal with ‘moving views’ from bridges and the need to

update the description of views were mentioned. In general it seemed that an update, with

some tweaks, is all that is required.

However two important issues were raised. First, how are we considering views and

townscape issues away form these strategic views? And second, how well are we working

with, and using, the influence of the view geometry in our spatial planning?

In terms of the first of these, people from east and south London boroughs don’t really have

anything to do with the strategic views. They may or may not have drafted lists of local

views, but it is a massive piece of work to create the detailed geometry in the LVMF for local

views. The relative importance of a local view, or a change to the townscape to local

communities, rather than to London as a whole, is not really dealt with, and the weight that

should be given to visual change that does not relate to a historic asset is an issue that could

do with further thought.

There was discussion about what we ‘like’, or don’t, and how we think about landmarks.

This could be influenced by appearance, shape, size, position or connection (ability to use or

relate to the buildings use). There were questions about whether new strategic landmarks

should come forward to join St Pauls and the Palace of Westminster, and how we should be

judging the quality, beauty and visual contribution of new buildings which lots of people will

see for many areas.

In terms of 3D planning, we were given a fascinating introduction to where some of the

geometric air restrictions sit, and what this has meant for where tall building proposals have

come forward. For example with them lining up behind each other as seen in a single view

35

of St Pauls from the Thames, or being built along City Road in a wall shape because this is

the space between two viewing corridors. He also explained how buildings are designed

starting with the viewing corridor and rights to light air envelopes showing the maximum

amount of cubic air space that can be taken up without effecting these issues, and how the

building shapes can then be carved to reflect these envelopes. Hence all our odd shaped

tall towers, a product of invisible air space geometric policies.

So, what next?

Tall buildings and view management policies might not be one of the Mayor’s priorities, they

might not be highest on the list of things for the London plan team to look at, but they are

important for London.

There are many good ways of taking this forward, but here is one suggestion:

Review and be clear, within the Plan, about the role of tall buildings; why we want

them, where we want them and when and where we don’t want them

Take forward the debate on how we should consider landmarks (both strategic and

local), public appreciation of townscape and architectural quality and what this means

for policy requirements and assessment

Review the density and urban design policies so they create a clear and firm basis

for the assessment of tall buildings. Potentially nuance these to relate to low,

medium, high and hyper density schemes and neighbourhoods and relate them to

the urban forms that will meet the London Plan objectives

Update the LVMF to deal with the in-practice issues being identified

Use 3D planning to better understand where pressure for tall buildings will occur and

proactively set out how they should develop in those areas

Set threshold requirements for the performance of individual tall buildings in terms of:

o Their climatic impact on their surroundings (wind/temperature/shadowing)

o Their activity related impact on their surroundings (deliveries/waste collection)

36

o The quality of internal environment (temperature, daylight levels, ability to

interact with others, relationship between different users/occupiers and

access to services)

o Their maintenance and management regime and how this will be funded in

the longer term

Ensure there is greater balance between different policy areas so that those that are

clear in mathematical terms do not take precedence just because they use numbers

or geometry

37

The London Plan and Suburban Intensification Suggestions for the Future Briefing Note from UDL Ways to Intensify Suburbs event, 13th July 2016

Speakers: Duncan Bowie, Senior Lecturer, University of Westminster Kat Hanna, Research Manager, Centre for London Julia Park, Head of Housing Research, Levitt Bernstein Adrian Cole, Director of Development Planning, Steer Davies Gleave Bruce McVean, Principal Strategy Planner, Transport for London George Weeks, Urban Designer, Transport for London Brian Deegan, Principal Technical Specialist, Transport for London Aliasgar Inayathusein, Policy Appraisal & Sub Regional Modelling, Transport for London Harriet Glen, Programme Manager, Crossrail 2

On the 13th July over eighty of London’s practising senior transport, policy and spatial

planners came together with Councillors and Conservation officers to address how to

intensify London’s suburbs.

We discussed the different roles suburbs can play depending on their location, character,

and demographics. All have the potential to accommodate new homes and jobs and facilities

but they cannot be treated as homogeneous in policy terms.

The word suburb may be a little misleading as the areas of London outside central and inner

rings do, and will need to increasingly, perform much more than dormitory functions. They

have the potential to be places for new and emerging working practices, a home for

technology, creative and other industries to grow and flourish.

The geography of our suburban areas is very interesting, and potentially useful. Rather than

a traditional model of settlements coalescing around a core, with sub centres being in the

main service areas for their particularly hinterland, we can see London developing multiple

functional centres with specialities and supportive clusters. This process started centuries

ago with the ‘West’ government function and the ‘East’ financial function, a pattern since

bolstered by many other clusters of activity. The potential to continue this approach,

38

supporting key outer London centres with strategic importance in their particular field, could

be a useful policy option.

This is a more sophisticated approach than the rather simplistic ‘densify-around-activity-

hubs’ concept, although this is of course a component to the success of any outer London

centre. It looks to both use suburban areas to accommodate growth, and also let them help

take some of the pressure off central areas and recalibrate London’s

movement/employment/living geography to some extent.

It can be very easy for planners and others to dismiss the appeal of suburbs for those who

live in them, and think everyone would be happier if they were converted into inner London

type neighbourhoods. This approach does not build on the positive aspects of suburbs and

could be hard to build consensus around. To reinforce the positives, such as perceived

safety, quiet, greenery, space and privacy, while overcoming the negative, such as isolation,

reliance on the car to travel, inefficient use of land and other resources, difficulty in providing

and reaching facilities, long commutes etc. would be the nirvana of suburban evolution. This

might mean specific policies on the “look and feel” of individual places, valuing of local

landmarks and respecting character. It would also, of course involve improving existing

movement networks and focusing on lower car travel (not no cars), whilst improving existing

transport links and increasing the carrying capacity for walking and cycling of streets and

roads linking to transport hubs.

A stepped approach to weening suburbs off car dependency would be worth considering.

The structure of some suburbs does not lend itself to other means of transport. So it might

be easier to start by looking to intensify those areas that have rich movement networks and

the potential to reduce car use because of structural opportunities for affordable public

transport and walking/cycling improvements. A look at how to increase service provision

through encouraging or protecting local parades, even developing, over time, small activity

hubs around key bus stops so that it becomes increasingly possible to get to the things

needed without a car could open the door in some areas to eventual intensification.

What must be avoided is creating intense sprawl for the sake of achieving housing numbers

alone. That is simply building more homes in places that are hard to live in without using a

car without changing anything else about the area. This can lead to congestion and air

pollution (if people drive), social isolation and high transport costs.

39

We should be planning-in flexibility within suburban town centres, for example so they can

facilitate click and collect shopping and provide new ways of working.

Turning to practical issues, it was clear that a mechanism is needed to capture uplift in

values in suburbs, particularly from publically owned assets, to help pay for their

transformation into better connected, active, non car dependant, vibrant and loved areas.

We also acknowledged the need for the political will to enable change and help people

understand and articulate the benefits that change, done successfully, can bring.

Suggestions for the Future

1. Use consistent bed spaces per hectare measurement, not dwellings per

hectare, to more accurately assess how many people will be living in an area

and so plan for the provision of local infrastructure, including workspace

needs, amenities and public services such as schools, health and recreational

centres. Both planning authorities and developers need to be encouraged and

incentivised by policy and to know what they are dealing with: ensure greater

expectations on plan-makers to pro-actively consider density levels (bed spaces per

hectare) when allocating sites in plans, setting strategic density levels to get the right

sites with potential to deliver quality homes and places.

2. Consider proportionate relaxing of step-free restrictions in housing policy to

take account of context within town centres, particularly above shops, and

optimise development opportunities. Current policy is too restrictive for site-

specific and contextual proposals. Consider local demographics, for example extra

care/homes for older people/new look HMOs; quantify it by percentage of borough

need and pro-actively work with developers to deliver this.

3. Clarify regulations for HMO’s and broaden definitions to include purpose built,

live-work/mixed use space for multi generational use, providing a London-wide

financial model that is design-led and supports existing policies for delivery of

new homes. Current legislation and regulations vary considerably regarding what

constitutes an HMO. This shared housing typology could provide a new way of

communal or shared-housing provision, with a mixed use, inter-generational support

model, in or adjacent to town centres. There is a potential to utilise redundant/empty

properties back into full use and provide increased footfall to flagging town centres.

40

4. Provide shared car use/autonomous vehicular space requirements; require

increased use of underground and stacked parking, reducing surface car

parking and utilising surplus car parking capacity for homes, shops and

amenities. Acknowledging that car storage is not the same thing as car use. Both

have impacts in suburbs, but in terms of intensifying land use, removing car parking,

by ensuring access to automated or hail-to-use cars, could provide space for more

intensive development, which if done well, could reduce travel demands. So, whilst

recognising the continued need and use of cars in many suburbs, incrementally plan

for and provide autonomous vehicle capacity; linked with CPZ’s and provision of

improved pedestrian and cycling infrastructure.

5. Share or pool expertise across London to increase the speed and use of CPOs.

Although noted as potentially controversial, with the right compensatory or land value

uplift shared equitably, this could work well on town centres edges, for example

through strengthening CPO powers on large gardens and golf courses. Both require

suburban/urban needs assessment.

41

The London Plan and Density Suggestions for the Future Briefing Note from UDL Policy Symposium, 22nd September 2016

Discussion Leads: Michael Bach, London Forum Andy Von Bradsky , PRP Architects and the Housing Forum Jane Briginshaw, Jane Briginshaw Associates Brendan Cuddihy, Arup David Jowsey, TfL Elliot Kemp, GLA Dr Riette Oosthuizen, HTA Laura Putt, TfL Dr Eime Tobari, Space Syntax Marcus Wiltshire, IBI Group Liz Wrigley, Core

These notes expand on the 6 key takeaways:

1. We need to be clear about what we want our city to be like and then develop

the policies to help achieve this. A difficult proposition, especially within the

envelope of a housing target led planning system, but robust policies that explain

what will, and will not be acceptable in terms of form and quality would help.

The original density matrix was part of a very clear ‘Compact City’ approach to planning.

This aimed to reverse the post-war policy of depopulating the city with resultant urban decay

and associated suburban sprawl. And it has been very successful. Over 15 or so years

London has changed dramatically, and the current challenges regarding hyper density and

criticism of the density policies, could be seen as a product of the approach’s continued

success.

But it is much less clear what the next ‘big idea’ is and how policies such as the density

matrix should fit with this. Is it sufficient to keep with the higher accessibility = higher

42

density model, or should London be setting an upper limit beyond which this should not be

the overriding aim? Or somewhere between these two approaches, where greater scrutiny

and attention to resultant quality and liveability is given to higher density schemes and

areas?

In particular, to date the London Plan(s) have focused attention on the more accessible

areas, encouraging higher densities to help bring about change. But they have said little

about the 60% or so of London that is in PTAL zones 2 and below. As such, although it is

logical to say we need to build in a way so that those living in new homes should not rely on

the car, we have been doing very little for people in the existing homes where this is already

the case.

Maybe this is the next big challenge, and we heard about the Suburbia idea, looking at

increasing numbers of residents in a suburb. This seems to be an important part of the story

and needs to go hand in hand with changing the rest of the characteristics of that place,

including good access to local jobs, facilities and services.

Maybe the next London Plan could aim to reduce or eliminate PTAL 0 and 1, (except in the

green belt) by improving public transport provision. Achieving this would take a lot more than

land use planning, requiring very major changes in transport habits and services. But it

might be the kind of question to give real long tem direction.

We heard how other cities, such as Paris, Manchester, Bristol, do not use density polices in

the way we do, but look at the values they collectively think are important and plan to

achieve these.

We heard about the ‘Vancouver Block’ and the Canadian/north American approach which

strongly supports the creation and retention of an urban block city structure, allowing for

taller elements providing active street walls and good quality open spaces of various types

are also provided.

In Paris the clear decision not to built ‘up’ in the central city is now being questions as

investment is being pulled out of the city, possibly as a result of this policy. But such ways of

planning need to be the product of political debate and decision – what should our city be

like, what is most important to us.

43

2. Should density be an input to, or output from, planning, or maybe both? In

other words should particular site densities be created by meeting other planning

requirements or should they be the starting point for any proposal.

It was interesting to hear about the history of the current policy approach, how it started as a

reaction to post war density limits, and the trend for declining town centres. The original

matrix was based on research to see what densities could be achieved with different layouts,

building forms and car parking levels whilst still ensuring 6 key design principles were met

(daylighting, privacy, adaptability etc). Good access to both local facilities/services and

public transport commuting was seen as allowing for a reduction in the need for car

ownership and use, so the provision of less car parking space, allowing for higher building

densities.

The research looked at a range of sites, mainly around town centres, and created the

density ranges by testing out what could be fitted onto them whilst still meeting these criteria.

As such the density figures were an output from a particular approach to parking and

accessibility alongside rigorous design requirements.

We were told that mapping London by density range was not an intention of the work, but

the ranges are now used as an input to housing land availability assessments and site

appraisals and development negotiations.

Some of the original 6 quality criteria that fed into the matrix are covered within the current

housing standards, but others, such as daylighting and sunlight, especially to outdoor areas,

may have fallen by the wayside, especially as the London Plan’s design policies seem to

have weakened since 2008.

It is also worth remembering that the testing done for the original matrix did not envisage the

super densities now being seen, and that it would be risky to rely on its ranges as an

indication of probably quality and appropriates at the higher levels.

In summary, there is some concern that the inputs that supported the creation of the matrix

are now out of date, and may not be adequately required in their on right by policy. But the

ranges these produced are still being used as an input to many different types of planning

work.

44

An alternative approach would be to set very clear development conditions for

neighbourhoods, in the same way as we now do for inside homes through the housing

standards, and allow scheme densities to be derived from how these are met, i.e. the

densities achieved become an output from policy requirements rather than an input for

individual schemes. Such conditions might include the microclimate and daylight penetration

of open spaces, amount of recreational space which is not also serving as waste storage or

movement space, the capacity of movement facilities (including station entrances and

walking and cycling space) and other services from café’s to sports facilities to

accommodate the number of people who may need to use them, internal and external noise

and privacy levels and so on.

3. Residents like, or dislike, a place because of its design and intrinsic

characteristics, not because of its density. Places that give people the

opportunity to live well both inside and outside the home, which provide good access

to a range of interesting things to do and space conducive to enjoying the company

of neighbours, are most successful. In London, we need to improve how we deliver

these characteristics at higher densities.

This point relates to using density as an output rather than an input. We heard how people,

including planning and design professionals, find it vey difficult to tell what the density of a

particular place is. However there are similarities in terms of how they rate the success of a

place, based on its intrinsic characteristics.

These characteristics include the basic design principles of good quality public space,

adaptability, being fit for purpose, lasting well, having a distinctive character, being inclusive,

well kept, include greenery etc.

We know that developments at various densities can have, or not have, these

characteristics. They are not a function of density in themselves. But if the London plan

focuses on the density first, in a bid to ensure housing number targets are met 9which they

never seem to be), then achieving these characteristics can all too often be seen as of

secondary importance.

The next London Plan might like to take a user experience approach to development, saying

first that what is built should work well for those who will use it, and that he numbers have to

be achieved without jeopardising this. A very difficult, and some would say unrealistic thing

to say at this point in a national housing crisis. However if the London Plan does not take a

45

stand on quality it could be condemning many people to live in unhealthy, depressing and

inefficient conditions well into the future.

4. New ways of understanding and mapping places should be used to enrich our

density policies. This should include understanding of local movement patterns and

barriers, jobs and land uses and the position and capacity of a range of services and

infrastructure, not just public transport.

We were given a very interesting talk on the new Webcat mapping tool which led to

discussion over how the current policies deal with spatial dynamics. Although it was clear

that the relationship between better public transport access and higher densities was sound,

it was noted that the original matrix considered more than PTALs, takin into account. The

next London plan should benefit from new tools to allow for the consideration of more issues

that could influence the appropriateness of one place, over another, for higher density

development such as:

Access to local services and facilities (and potentially their capacity) for both existing

and new residence, and opportunities available to increase and improve provision

The actual movement opportunities in a neighbourhood created by the richness of

the route network and the grain of its structure, barriers to local movement and

opportunities to remove these and improve the network

The practicality of movement, including overcrowding, regularity of service, time

journeys take and travel costs.

The potential for different areas to change, in particular to make better use of existing

stations and activity centres in outer London and to better connect where people

might work and live

By improving the data available for planners, whether at the GLA, boroughs or in private

practice, it was felt that we could improve our approach to place based planning, helping the

city make the most of its suburban areas in particular.

46

5. Can one density matrix be both a strategic planning tool, and support the

determination of individual planning applications? By combining the roles it may

not be providing the best tool for either.

This point relate closely to the one above in so far as that although there may be concerns

about letting the density ranges wag the dog as it were in terms of influencing individual

schemes, they are seen as a useful input to strategic planning, particularly SHLAAs and to

help build cases for additional infrastructure investment.

There was however some concerns raided over the primacy given to planning for housing,

and the lack of attention paid to the needs of employment space and the relationship

between the two.

Delegates also felt that the matrix could be a useful tool when negotiating planning

applications, in so far as being able to ask for justification for schemes above or below the

ranges.

So there seems to be a challenge for the next London Plan, how to ensure the strategic

usefulness of the ranges is retained and strengthened, without letting the policy overwhelm

or undermine site specific, quality based planning work.

It might be that a feedback loop could be created, by which the density of schemes given

permission, in accordance with consistently adhered to characteristic and quality based

policies, are recorded. These figures are sorted in terms of the type of location (see point

below) and so provide the evidence to continually update the density ranges to feed into

strategic land use and infrastructure investment planning. Constantly applying policies is of

course not easy, especially when scheme viability and the provision of affordable housing

etc is taken into account. However such a feedback loop would represent good planning,

and ensure that the strategic use of the ranges could be more robustly justified than at

present.

47

6. The existing density policy is used and useful but has limitations, and the way

it is applied was questioned. It is seen as a useful element of SHLAAs, site

appraisals and negotiations, but around half of permissions are granted for schemes

outside its ranges, which greatly dilutes its effectiveness.

There was much debate about the usefulness or not of the current policy approach. The

matrix is used, but possibly not in the ways first intended, for example it may now be

influencing land prices and site options. It is established and if not always well understood,

easily recognised. The matrix has been an important part of everyday planning work in

London, so removing it, or radically altering it, could create significant waves.

There was however, concern over how it is applied and the fact that on the one hand it has

numbers, so feels concrete and unmovable, while on the other it is flouted, it seems as often

as adhered to. Unless the ranges are consistently applied, with schemes above or below

them being refused, it is hard to see how it can be more than the starting place for site by

site bargaining.

This issue goes way beyond the density policies themselves, and gets to the heart of how

our planning system works, but maybe more importantly to how our housing system works,

or does not work. The need to use private home building to pay for more and more – from

Crossrail CIL to affordable housing provision has created a viability system that does not

necessarily correspond to good physical planning and place making. A real challenge for

the next London Plan

Lastly, we briefly touched on the way the permission system is changing within planning. If

the Permission in principle concept included in the last Housing and Planning Act comes into

force, ot could radically change the way the London plan can influence what gets built

where. In such a scenario density setting ranges as one of a range of development

parameters at the Local Development Order (or similar) stage would become much more

important. Any new density policies should probably look closely at how they should operate

in such a future system.

48

What Should the London Plan say about Design Workshop

Briefing Note from UDL Policy Symposium, 16th November 2016

Facilitators:

Elliot Kemp, GLA

James Keogh, GLA

Levent Kerimol, GLA

Esther Kurland, UDL

Jennifer Peters, GLA

Andrew Russell, GLA

Sue Vincent, UDL / LB Camden

Exercise 1

Groups were asked to think about one high level Plan objective and choose words from cards provided that

best represented how design could help achieve this. They wrote down what a policy that included the

core word might focus on to help meet the Plan objective.

Main Ideas

1. Design for people, human centric planning, focusing on the experience and needs of people.

This was a major theme from the workshop. It was felt that taking this approach would help meet all

the strategic objectives. Groups suggested different approaches to this; for example that strong

cohesive communities needed a sense of belonging and distinct identity which could be created, in

part, through visual interest, variety, heritage and human scale design and building.

2. Connections, legibility, accessibility and convenience. These were grouped together (in slightly

different subsets) by different tables. It was felt that these helped make a place work, needed to be

considered at both strategic and local stages, helped integrate old and new but also land uses and

different parts of people’s lives, and helped create healthier and fairer places.

3. Affordability and equality of access to services, homes, facilities and other people. This was

mentioned by different groups as a slightly different take on the more traditional physical

accessibility and equal opportunity to use places regardless of physical ability.

4. Urban greening, public realm and greenery. This was considered by all tables as a path to

achieving their key objective, rather than as a nice to have for their own benefit. Groups looking at

how to achieve community cohesion saw these as a way of allowing people to come together, share

49

and have a common focus. The group looking at how to encourage acceptance of change felt that

these could create a more human focused approach that improved experiences for all.

5. Townscape and heritage, density and mix of uses, beauty and amenity. These were mentioned

in different contexts across the groups. They were generally seen as important to making

development fit in, both physically and functionally, enriching the quality of the resultant place.

PLAN OBJECTIVE

POLICY FOCUS CORE WORD

Accommodating Growth

Table 1

Designing for human interactions through

amenity

privacy

adaptability

greenery

To reach development outcomes

connections

human scale

density

Plan to state what is required/needed

affordability

accessibility

equitable

Accommodating Growth

Table 2

Promote mixed communities through density

Promoting SME businesses through mix of uses

Smart urbanism and future proofing adaptability

Strategic and local connectivity

A hierarchy of place, higher density at transport hubs legibility

Good quality streets creating better connections urban greening

public realm

Mixed typologies and street based urbanism heritage

townscape

Summary of Accommodating Growth: Both tables discussed the need to design for human interaction in order to successfully accommodate growth. This translated into a need for high quality streets, good connections and a focus on transport hubs. In terms of the physicality of development the tables called for mixed typologies, smart urbanism and future proofing to help make growth positive.

50

PLAN OBJECTIVE

POLICY FOCUS CORE WORD

Community Cohesion

Table 1

Homes, decent home for all, sense of belonging and stability through high quality, durable homes with amenity

quality

durable

amenity

Identity, a sense of belonging through valuing heritage, variety and interesting environments at human scale

heritage

human scale

variety/visual interest

Sharing, coming together through these things

urban greening

public realm

mix of use

Making it work through these things

connections

legibility

convenience

Allowing for change, meeting needs of future through these things

accessibility

adaptability

flexibility

Community Cohesion

Table 2

Communities

accessibility

inclusive

legibility

connections

permeability

communal nodes

Physical space

mix of uses

active frontage

human scale

urban greening

adaptability

Summary of Creating Strong and Cohesive Communities: This was seen as requiring a focus on both people and physical space and buildings. It was suggested that successful communities need decent homes, identity, opportunities to interact and share, and the ability to change and adapt. In physical terms it was felt that places needed to create the conditions to allow these things to happen/be provided. To do so they needed a well-connected, permeable, legible, convenient structure which accommodated a variety of high quality interesting, human scale, and green physical elements, which allowed for mix of use and activity, good amenity, active frontages/participation and responsibility for both the place and the communities it supports.

51

PLAN OBJECTIVE

POLICY FOCUS CORE WORD

Local Acceptance of Change

Integrating with surrounding area, lively streets, intertwining new and existing residents through

legibility

accessibility

mix of uses

connections

Health, wellbeing and happiness through

privacy

safety/security

amenity

Human focused place and human experience through

beauty

variety/visual interest

human scale

sustainable

heritage

Creating a people first environment through

greenery

urban greening

shared space

public realm

Active citizens and sense of ownership/responsibility through

affordability

maintenance

durability

governance

Summary of Local Acceptance of Change: It was felt to be more forthcoming if people’s health, wellbeing and happiness were considered. Fostering active citizens who’s shared a sense of ownership and responsibility across old and new populations was the ideal. This should be supported by a well-connected/integrated urban structure which brought people together and provided a people first environment that focused on the human experience of place.

52

PLAN OBJECTIVE

POLICY FOCUS CORE WORD

Healthy, Fair and Resilient Places

Thinking of the long tem and short term life of what we are making

flexibility

adaptability

maintenance

management

durability

Common ground, contextual/cumulative benefits and developments responding to human needs/reducing stress/increasing activity through

quality

human scale/focus

Climate change resilience/support wildlife/give relief from urbanity of city through

urban greening

public realm

greenery

Healthier neighborhoods by increasing local amenities through

mix of uses

density

Walkability/active lifestyles/access for all through legibility

accessibility

Summary of Healthier/Fairer/Resilient Places: These were seen as requiring consideration of both long and short term requirements. Again common ground was advocated, and the need for developments to respond to human needs. It was felt that the urban structure, and quality of public spaces of all kinds could benefit healthier lifestyles.

53

Exercise 2

Groups were asked to look at a range of words often used when describing and discussing design within

planning work. They were asked to pick the ones they thought would be most useful within policies to help

achieve the aims they had set out in Exercise 1. Each group was still working to their high level Plan

objective, but were asked to look at how design related policies, applied to planning application decisions or

processes, could help achieve them.

Main Ideas

1. Words that could be the focus of a policy requirement were grouped, either by who would be

effected by them (e.g. Group 2 split the words into those effecting me, my neighbors and my

community) or spatially (e.g. those relating to the inside of buildings, or to open space).

2. The idea of starting with the personal, the human experience, as the focus for policy outcomes was

put forward across groups independently of each other. A number called for policy to move from the

person, to the space, to the building.

3. The use of standards, design codes and pattern books were discussed independently by different

groups. Some felt these would be very useful; guiding what would, or would not be acceptable.

Others thought that there should be guidelines sitting along robust and creative design and

assessment processes.

4. During the discussion the point was strongly made that change, growth, and development should

bring with it positive outcomes for both existing and new users. The opportunity change represents

should be wisely used to improve the way London looks, feels and works (very much in line with

NPPF policy).

5. Some words that are commonly used in todays policies, where not chosen as often as other words

by the groups. For example floor to ceiling heights was only used by 2 of the 6 groups. The table

below shows the most commonly chosen words, those all 6 groups choose to use are highlighted.

Many of these are not mentioned in the current London Plan.

54

active frontages 5 proportions 5

air quality 6 public space 5

appearance 5 servicing access 4

architecture 6 shelter 5

building use 4 sky visibility 5

density 5 space standards 5

dimensions of public space 6 street furniture 5

entrances/location of core 4 street width 6

floor to ceiling heights 4 sunlight penetration 4

height/scale/mass 4 transport hubs 6

materials 6 tree planting 5

moment networks 5 way finding 6

noise vibration 5 wind 5

overshadowing 4 proportions 5

play space 6 public space 5

55

Group 1

Creating conditions for social integration and strong communities

POLICY WORD RELATING TO

architecture

About buildings, including how they bound public space

appearance

density

proportions

building use

materials

play space

Core public space

shelter

way finding

movement networks

needs a purpose

transport hubs

Standards for public space

air quality

noise/vibration

street furniture

wind

daylight/sunlight

street widths

dimensions of squares and public spaces

active frontages

Bounding public space

height/scale/mass

overshadowing

tree planting

sky visibility

public space/private flat interface

communal space

56

Group 2

Creating conditions for social integration and strong communities

POLICY WORD RELATING TO

floor to ceiling heights

Me

About everyone needing a decent place to live

space standards

private space

outlook

dual aspect

sunlight penetrations

cross ventilation

average daylight factor/glazing

daylight/sunlight

sky visibility

entrances/location of core

Neighbours

About getting on with those around you, who you share some spaces with every day

refuse/recycling/storage

buggy/cycle storage

noise/vibration

units per core

servicing access

overshadowing

wind

transport hubs

Community

About having a cohesive place that works for everyone

movement networks

street furniture

public space

tree planting

active frontages

way finding

air quality

play space

affordable tenure mix

57

glazing

Identity

About character, context and a sense of place

materials

height/scale/mass

building use

density

proportions

appearance

street width

dimensions of public space

architecture

58

Group 3

Creating acceptance of change

POLICY WORD RELATING TO

sunlight penetration

Step 1

About the needs of the person. ambience, soft amenity health and well being needs to be taken into account

affordable

shelter

outlook

natural ventilation

wind

noise vibration

sky visibility

air quality

shadowing

play space

Step 2.

About the space, its dimensions, structure, use and quality

private space

public space

tree planting

materials

street widths

dimensions of public space

transport hubs

movement networks

way finding

entrances/location of cores

density

Step 3

About the building, possibly using codes or pattern books to manage. The building is the outcome of meeting Step 1 and 2

floor to ceiling heights

space standards

architecture

appearance

active frontages

unit size/design variety

59

Group 4

Creating acceptance of change

POLICY WORD RELATING TO

proportions

Demonstrate what development will be like in 20 years time, should be adaptable.

height/scale/mass

architecture

maintenance and management

floor to ceiling heights

materials

space standards

play space

Helping to create healthy spaces

water sensitive design

air quality

public space

tree planting

sunlight to public space

shelter

street furniture

servicing areas

Helping to create healthy streets

entrances/location of cores

active frontages

street widths

dimensions of public space

active travel

wayfinding

movement networks

transport hubs

access to services

density

cycle storage

desire lines

freight consolidation

60

Group 5

Accommodating growth

POLICY WORD RELATING TO

entrances/location of cores

Detailed issues within buildings

refuse/recycling/storage

space standards

cycle storage

height/scale/mass

dual aspect

units per core

cross ventilation

average daylight factor

sky visibility

private space

floor to ceiling heights

sunlight penetration

noise/vibration (Building Regulations)

appearance

Site specific issues

proportions

architecture

tree planting

street furniture

overshadowing

outlook

active frontages

shelter

materials

wind

street widths

dimensions of public space

61

movement networks

Strategic/city neighbourhood issues. Needs more strategic approach to 'city' living and working.

density

transport hubs

way-finding

play space

public space

building use

servicing access

air quality

daylight/sunlight

play space

Desirable outcomes of growth that 'give' to an area street furniture

street planting

way-finding

Should be human scale

transport hubs

dimensions of public space

street widths

public space

movement networks

sky visibility

Create cleaner, greener London with good lighting and access to sky

sunlight penetration

air quality

62

Group 6

Accommodating growth

POLICY WORD RELATING TO

building use

Building scale

architecture

shelter

proportions

appearance

materials

wind

Address these through measures noise/vibration

overshadowing

average daylight factor

wind

Measure and monitor

servicing access

density

units per core

space standards

storage

private space

cross ventilation

daylight/sunlight

63

Exercise 3

Groups were asked to look at what policies the Plan should include relating to different types of areas.

Town Centre Renewal & Large Scale Opportunity Areas

There is a need to masterplan manageable areas within OA’s with a particular focus on delivering social

infrastructure. This should be safeguarded and delivered through CIL receipts. However there is also a

need to make design quality and the needs of people mutually exclusive from development profit. Planning

should look to remove ‘value engineering’. This might be helped if a good evidence base feeds into the

planning frameworks that form the base line for masterplan documents. This could include ‘health impact

assessments’, ‘cultural identification’, and ‘social assets mapping’.

Opportunity Areas

Link to existing surrounding networks and ensure benefits to those areas are seen and felt. Have a ’20

year’s policy’ which ensures durability and adaptability, show how different scenarios of how buildings could

change and how the way the area grows will respond to changing conditions. Think about the

environmental challenges, be water sensitive, build in resilience and use SuDS. Urban greening/green

infrastructure is important. All this needs communicating to developers and communities. It needs joined

up thinking, continuity and consistency, seeing everything together and thinking beyond the red line

boundary. A ‘common context’ policy summarising all could help.

Intensifying Suburbs – 1

Maximise the positive benefits such as better and more mixed uses and community facilities, a more mixed

community and provision of special needs housing, creating nodes and focal points to aid local identity, and

provide more communal and community spaces as part of any development. Reduce the negatives by

using standards/performance thresholds. Developers should earn the right to intensify the suburb where

they respect the quid pro quo and meet objectives other than housing numbers.

Intensifying Suburbs – 2

Design should recognise places are places and not a blank sheet. Schemes should take inspiration from

what is already there. This maybe requires better collaboration between residents and councils from the

start, to overcome common reasons for objection to change (services, trust, outsiders, place (identity),

politics, engagement, disruption. For example don’t always assume you should build to boundary of a site,

give a little back.

64

Intensifying Suburbs – 3

One thing about suburbs is they often use a standard house type/layout typology. This could mean

standardised codes could be prepared to manage their intensification. One idea would be to allow for

automatic permission for schemes that met this code, using permits for additional floor space, conversion

and back garden development. The London plan could not do this; the boroughs would need to, changing

their existing policies on things like back to back distances. Deal with car parking issues by allowing it and

letting congestion put people off using cars.

Intensifying Suburbs – 4

Use design codes for massing, remembering the ‘golden ratio’. Use the existing density to allow a site to

intensify to a defined proportion (that can not be argued). Ensure there is a good audit of context, heritage

grain etc. Set principles for intensification around scale, landscape and context. These need to be set,

working with neighbourhoods, up front. Intensification should be based around growth for people, certainty

and the need to breathe.