Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
glhearn.com
The Second Annual Planning Survey: The Results!
Designing the future planning system
17 September 2013
glhearn.com
Introduction and welcomeAlastair Crowdy
National Head of Development Group
17 September 2013
The second annual planning survey
glhearn.com
Setting the sceneShaun Andrews
Head of Investor and Developer Planning, GL Hearn
17 September 2013
The second annual planning survey
First Annual Planning SurveyRecap
• Key issues last year:
‒ Cost
‒ Certainty
‒ Time
‒ Relationship – although improving, the two cultures of planning
• Key area for improvement:
‒ Planning Performance Agreements
‒ Time
‒ Relationship – although improving, the two cultures of planning
Major Applications Research
Approach
• All London Boroughs analysed and compared with 2011/12 results
• Manchester metropolitan area also assessed for first time
• Objective – assessment of how each borough processes major applications – standard definition
• No S73 or 96a applications (variations / amendments)
• Timeframe - 12 month period following NPPF (published April 2012) and it immediately follows the previous survey – two years of complete data
• Focus – Activity, Time and Certainty
Importance of each factor in decision to invest
Site specific opportunity
Fit with investment strategy
Market opportunity
Previous dealings with local planning authority
Effectiveness of the planning system
Reputation of the local planning authority
8.3
8.2
8.1
5.8
5.8
5.4
LPA itself important to decision-making
Activity in London
No. of major apps determined last year
Westminster ; 59
Tower Hamlets ; 46
Southwark ; 43
Camden ; 42
Hackney ; 42
Hounslow ; 41
Croydon ; 30
Lambeth ; 29
Greenwich ; 26
Newham ; 26Barnet ; 22
City of London ; 22
Islington ; 22
Kingston-upon-Thames ; 22
Merton ; 22
Brent ; 21
Wandsworth ; 21
Ealing ; 19
Hammersmith & Fulham ; 19
Havering ; 19
Bromley ; 18
Hillingdon ; 18
Bexley ; 17
Haringey ; 17
Harrow ; 16Barking & Dagenham ; 15
Enfield ; 15
Waltham Forest ; 15
Sutton ; 14
Redbridge ; 13
Kensington & Chelsea ; 11Lewisham ; 7
Richmond-upon-Thames ; 6
Total no. of Apps 775
28% (on previous year)
Total number of major apps last year
Percentage change in major applications 2011/12 to 2012/13
Determination Time in London
Major applications being determined 29% faster
201
201
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
3
3
19
24
5
10
Submission-Validation Validation- Resolution Resolution- Determination
Weeks
34
24
Validation–determination comparison
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Val to Det (weeks) (2011-2012) Val to Det (weeks) (2012-2013)
London Boroughs
Num
ber o
f Wee
ks
2012/13 24 Average wks
2011/12 34 Average wks
13 average weeks
Certainty in London
Yearly comparison of major application approval
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
% of major apps approved 2011-12 % of major apps approved 2012-13Average Percentage 2011-12 Average percentage 2012-13
London Boroughs
Delegated vs. committee decisions last year
36% Delegated64% Commitee
Approved 69%
Refused 31%
Approved 89%
Refused 11%
Determination time vs. no. of major apps last year
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 7010
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Camden
HounslowSouthwark
Westminster
Number of Major Apps.
Nu
mb
er o
f W
eeks
Appeals allowed (average of all London boroughs)
2008-9 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-20130
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Number of appeals determined Percentage of appeals allowed
No
. of
ap
pe
als
de
term
ine
d
Pe
rce
nta
ge
s o
f a
pp
ea
ls a
llow
ed
Manchester Metropolitan Area
Manchester: total 389 major applications last year
Manch
ester C
ity
Traffo
rd
Stock
port
Wig
an
Old
ham
Bury
Bolton
Salford
Rochdale
Tamesid
e
95
47 4641
35 3329 28 27
8
Manchester approval percentage 2012-13
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%100%
97% 96%
93%93%
91% 91% 91%
88%
85%
Manchester boroughs
93%Manchester average
82 % London average
Second Annual Planning Survey
Second Annual Planning SurveyAbout the survey
• Objective – to understand current views of the planning system and of recent and proposed changes
• Two surveys conducted over the summer:
‒ one of LPAs – 50 respondents
‒ one of applicants (either applicants or their advisers) – 144 respondents
• Only selected highlights today, full results to be published
• Selected figures from the first survey also included
• Main issues raised last year related to time, cost and certainty
Second Annual Planning SurveyGeneral views on time
• We asked the same question in 2012:
‒ 70% of applicants remained dissatisfied with how long applications take to reach a decision, down slightly from 75% in 2012
• Furthermore, significant divergence of opinion on how quickly LPAs process applications:
‒ 79% of Applicants disagreed with the statement that LPAs process applications speedily whereas 78% of LPAs agreed
Second Annual Planning SurveyApplicants’ views on cost
• We asked the same question in 2012:
‒ 63% of applicants remain dissatisfied with the cost of applications, down slightly from 68% in 2012
Second Annual Planning SurveyEffectiveness of developer and LPAs relationship
• 78% of LPAs deemed relationship to be quite effective and 6% very effective
• 30% of Applicants deemed relationship to be quite effective and 1% very effective
Effect of Localism Act and NPPF on producing a leaner and faster planning system - % agree
LPAs Applicants0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Effect of Localism Act and NPPF on development activity
LPA Applicants0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
4% 9%
18%
29%
66%46%
8% 12%
4% 4%
Decreased a lot
Decreased a little
Neither
Increased a little
Increased a lot
Second Annual Planning SurveyEffect of further reforms
• Since last survey, two significant measures introduced:
• On Special Measures:
a) 47% of Applicants believe that they will improve LPA performance, 58% think it is fair and 61% think it is a positive move
b) From the LPAs however, 58% do not think it will improve performance, 66% do no think it is fair and 70% do not think it is a positive move
• On PPAs:
a) Of those who entered into PPAs only 24% of Applicants view the experience as positive (the same as in 2012), yet 62% of LPAs who have entered into one think the experience a positive one
GL Hearn view
Are things really getting quicker?
• “Why have major applications dropped dramatically by 28% in London?”
• “And if major applications in London are being determined 29% quicker, why are applicants still so concerned?”
• “And furthermore, only 18% of LPAs and 9% of Applicants believe planning reforms have produced a faster and leaner system”
‒ Increased scrutiny has created unintended consequences
‒ Nature of pre-app has changed and its length increased
‒ A two-stage application process now evolving:
• ‘Informal’ pre-app stage: can be bloated, non-transparent and expensive
• The formal application stage: can still take 24 weeks (average), advice can be inconsistent, full fee still applies
‒ Need to focus on ‘whole-life’ of application
‒ Fundamentally is the application process too complex?
Can LPAs and Applicants work better together?
• A common purpose, enabling the right development to happen in the right locations
• Survey has shown again however that perspective of the two parties are very different
• Most striking perhaps is the difference between the perceived relationship:
‒ 69% of Applicants do not think Applicants and LPAs work together effectively, yet 84% of LPAs think they do
• Whilst regulatory role of LPA is understood, we really need to focus on creating a better partnership
glhearn.com
glhearn.com
Planning Reform - the journey continuesTony Thompson
Director, Department for Communities and Local Government
17 September 2013
The second annual planning survey
glhearn.com
The developer perspective: partnerships of the future – what works, and what doesn’tEmma Cariaga
Development Director, Land Securities
17 September 2013
The second annual planning survey
The Developer’s Perspective
Emma Cariaga, Development Director
Land Securities portfolio
London/Retail Portfolio
Long term asset managers
25.6m sq,ft portfolio
2.5m sq.ft Development pipeline in London
Importance of functioning planning system
UK’s Planning History 2010-2013
2010
2011
2012
2013 – CIL watch
Current position
Only 2% of LA’s consider communities benefit from development
Only 8% of LA’s think the Localism Bill & NPPF increased the number of decisions made locally
<20% of LA’s think the NPPF & Localism Bill has produced a faster & leaner planning system
(Source GL Hearn Annual Planning Survey)
Current position
Local Authorities
Budgetary pressures
Major change in burden of responsibility
Skills shortage
Investors
Reduced certainty of outcome = higher risk
Wide disparity of outcomes
Longer process
Communities
Lack of certainty
Significant input required – consultation fatigue…..
Silent majority often not heard
So now what?
My vision for the Planning System – 2020
Development perceived as a force
for good
Replicate approach taken in cities
to suburban and rural areas with
strategic not detailed plans
Further deregulation of the process
to improve efficiencies
And in the mean time here’s for some quick wins….
A return to EZ’s for a finite period to encourage land zoning & simplified permissions to stimulate growth in areas of high demand
2yr grace period with no requirement for planning permission for any applications delivering 100% affordable housing or PRS, to help balance the housing supply in areas of high demand
Short term privatisation of determining large applications in return for a guaranteed decision in 6 months
Thank You
glhearn.com
The local authority perspective: how to make the best of the current environmentMike Kiely
Director of Planning & Building Control, London Borough of Croydon
17 September 2013
The second annual planning survey
glhearn.com
London: the GLA’s perspective on the results and how London can continue to thriveStewart Murray
Assistant Director of Planning for the Mayor of London
17 September 2013
The second annual planning survey
GL Hearn/BPF Research & Seminar
17 September 2013Stewart Murray, Assistant Director – PlanningEmail: [email protected];
Mayor ’s 2020 Vision
A popu la t ion exp los ion :8 .3m now ( *Census 2011)
9 .0m by 2020s10 .0m by 2030s
A d i re shor tage o f homes and aff ordab le homes
The most uncompromis ing g loba l economy ever
GLA Strategies & Timetable• Revised Early Minor Alterations to London Plan (REMA) –
Assembly Committee early Sept, published Autumn‘13• Mayor’s Housing Strategy - consultation draft October’13• New London Housing Funding prospectus – Late Nov’13• Growth Figures per borough/SHLAA, Further Alterations to
London Plan (FALP) consultation– Jan’14• London Plan EIP - Autumn ‘14• Publish London Plan – March’15
Further Alterations to the London Plan and the revised draft London Housing Strategy
Emerging policy changes
”
LONDON PLAN
A growing population – towards 10 million mega city
London’s Future housing requirementsDepends on:
1. Household formation (CLG currently suggests c52,000 more households pa to 2021- GLA c41,000 but falling after 2021 – intend to use GLA estimates)
2. Rate backlog is addressed – suggest use life of plan to 2036 – need settled for SHMA
“At least 40,000 per year” in strategy – mustn’t pre-judge plan/SHLAA
London Housing supply
• Need a set number for London Plan – SHLAA early indications just over 40,000pa is possible
• How to handle any ‘gap’ between requirements and capacity? Opportunity Areas & Town Centres back-up capacity reservoir.
• An overall target for long-term covenanted PRS? – Could help support accelerated delivery of supply– Recognises tenure that houses 25% of London households
Housing densities
– scope for higher densities in town centres and Opportunity Areas – recognise importance of sustaining local character in suburbs
Housing Standards & Quality
• DCLG standards review
– London distinctiveness – Mayor’s Housing SPG?– Should we strongly maintain current position?
• Ambiguity in national consultation document means this could be seen as supporting Government position
• London’s distinct circumstances (scale of provision, densities) justifies maintaining London’s approach
– Mayor’s design standards will continue to apply to funded affordable housing and other housing investments
Strategic Large developments
• Emphasise importance to provision and potential for large scale sites, transport corridors and accelerated PRS development
• Key role of GLA-led Opportunity Area Planning Frameworks (OAPFs) in bringing forward capacity, e.g. Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea (VNEB)
Old Oak Common – Super Interchange Station
Strategically located in West London on vast brownfield & rail land
High Speed 2 to the North
Crossrail to the East
High Speed to
the Continent
Crossrail to
MaidenheadGWML
to the West
Old Oak Common
EustonSt. Pancras
Stratford
Waterloo
Old Oak Common OAPF
Crossrail Depot
IEP Depot
Wormwood Scrubs
West London Opportunity Areas
Old Oak Common Opportunity Area
• OAPF draft consultation – now!• London’s 2nd MDC• 19,000 new homes• 90,000 new jobs• HS2 / Crossrail 1 Super interchange• Relieve Euston Station• Link North and Birmingham to West & East London avoiding
bottlenecks• Estuary Airport potential links• New Urban Quarter for West London• Canal-side community/Wormwood Scrubs open space
Old Oak CommonOpportunity Area Planning Framework
Aerial Old Oak Common with Indicative Masterplan
Mixed communities and affordable housing
Housing Strategy aiming for new approach, post 2015 Round:
• social rent/target rents debate• rented homes for working Londoners (PRS)• affordable home ownership (LCHO) - How to reflect in plan?
1. Maintain 60:40 split – learn from AR experience
2. Have overall affordable housing number, no split – maximises flexibility but would need legal view
3. Enshrine anew mix with evidence base: justify in terms of broader economic, resource, welfare factors
Existing stock and future investment
• Barriers to Delivery - translating approvals to completions: distinguish build out rates;
• Speculators/non-builders/land bankers (‘lose it or use it’);• Genuine barriers (planners et al?)
• Slowness of planning system and uncertainty (e.g. Shell & Smithfield Market call-ins)
• Clarify CIL: imposed after account taken of AH, Mayoral CIL and other policy costs (i.e. Nth Devon decision)
• Currently just for Crossrail
• Crossrail total cost £14.5 billion
• Mayor (£7.1bn), Govt.grant (£4.7bn), Business (Canary Wharf, BAA, City)
• Funding arrangements agreed by Mayor & Ministers
• £600m Development contributions
• £300m S.106 / Supplementary Planning Guidance
• £300m CIL
CIL in LondonCollection of the Mayoral CIL – One year on
CIL in LondonCollection of the Mayoral CIL – One year on
CIL in LondonCollection of the Mayoral CIL – One year on
Borough 2000 -2005
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013-August
Total 2000-2013 August
City of London 72 16 20 5 1 5 12
6 5
142
Barking & Dagenham 36 4 11 8 6 6 10
11 4
96Barnet 19 1 8 10 12 6 14 8 8 86Bexley 21 6 8 6 4 9 2 8 1 65Brent 31 3 3 8 9 9 7 12 5 87Bromley 54 6 3 5 5 6 4 9 2 94Camden 15 6 7 3 6 7 7 9 7 67Croydon 49 6 13 9 8 7 8 4 6 110Ealing 51 2 8 7 6 7 8 14 7 110Enfield 32 3 4 1 5 7 7 10 5 74Greenwich 52 12 28 13 5 11 17 20 7 165Hackney 38 10 7 7 13 7 9 4 9 104Hammersmith & Fulham 39 7 8 9 5 7 11
9 6
101Haringey 13 3 4 3 2 3 4 5 3 40Harrow 12 4 5 10 6 5 13 6 5 66Havering 38 7 2 5 13 3 13 8 3 92Hillingdon 72 12 15 23 15 9 10 19 11 186Hounslow 35 7 7 11 7 10 14 12 14 117Islington 21 5 13 5 9 9 6 5 5 78
Kensington & Chelsea 10 2 6 10 1 2 2
4 7
44Kingston upon Thames 19 0 4 5 2 1 1
3 1
36Lambeth 44 13 7 13 4 13 7 8 11 120Lewisham 26 4 9 7 3 7 8 2 3 69Merton 32 3 3 13 3 6 1 2 2 65Newham 74 19 28 20 16 30 20 14 3 224Redbridge 10 4 1 1 4 0 9 7 1 37Richmond upon Thames 24 3 4 6 1 1 4
0 4
47Southwark 82 21 13 20 15 12 13 10 7 193Sutton 11 3 7 7 4 5 2 3 1 43Tower Hamlets 129 36 41 47 30 23 33
20 16375
Waltham Forest 15 4 0 3 0 1 6
3 1
33Wandsworth 34 14 11 8 9 6 3
13 6104
Westminster 59 15 33 26 11 18 15
22 19218
Totals 1,269 261 341 334 240 258 300 290 195 3488
Table 1: Planning Applications Referred to the Mayor 2000 - 2013Source: GLA Planning Unit
Totals 1,269 261 341 334 240 258 300 290 195 3488
Borough 2000 -2005
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013-August
Total 2000-2013 August
Totals 272 109 77 65 26 26 21 47 59 702
Borough 2000 -2005
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013-August
Total 2000-2013 August
Mayor of London, GLA
Note: This is Boris Johnson!
Stewart MurrayAssistant Director –PlanningCity Hall, London SE1 2AA
Email: [email protected];
glhearn.com
DebateFacilitated by Liz Peace
Chief Executive, BPF
17 September 2013
The second annual planning survey
glhearn.com
Conclusions and next stepsLiz Peace
Chief Executive, BPF
17 September 2013
The second annual planning survey
glhearn.com
