View
218
Download
5
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
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.
Recommended