GL Hearn's research in partnership with the BPF on changing the culture of planning in the UK.

1. Changing the culture of planning:
Delivering the Government‟s reforms

2. Welcome
Alastair Crowdy,
National Head of Planning, Development & Regeneration
18 September 2012
glhearn.com

3. The Annual Planning Survey
Shaun Andrews,
Head of Investor & Developer Planning
18 September 2012
glhearn.com

4. “Planning refusal shows Authority
is „closed for business‟
“Poorly performing planning
teams face special measures”
“Cameron to tackle planning again in
attempt to kick-start economy”
“Labour: reforms take power out of hands of
local people”
“Housing approvals fall by third”
“Government push to reform planning laws could
backfire, warns senior planning officer”

5. About the survey
• Survey of those closely involved in planning in public and private sector
• Applicants - 180 respondents - principals and professional advisors
• Local planning authorities – 40 senior managers, 11 London Boroughs
• Early indication of attitude following introduction of Localism Act and NPPF
• Annual survey to measure change

6. Applicants‟ views

7. Key Findings
Investment Decisions
• Whether to invest in a project • Perceptions of LPAs‟ approach to
informed by: development not encouraging
Positive
‒ Traditional factors such as: 10%
• Market opportunity
• Fit with investment strategy
Negative
41%
‒ Increasingly influenced by:
• Previous experience of an LPA
• Reputation of an LPA
Neutral
49%

8. Key Findings
Top planning considerations when seeking permission
The political control Other
of the local authority
The cost of
submitting a planning
application
The likelihood of
securing permission
The local planning
authority‟s
performance
The cost of planning
obligations/Communi
ty Infrastructure Levy
(CIL)
The time it takes to A clear planning
get a decision policy position

9. Key Findings
Planning applications
• Length of time to determine • Cost including fees and obligations
Very satisfied Satisfied Very satisfied Satisfied
1 8% 1% 2%
Very
Very dissatisfied
dissatisfied Neutral – it‟s Neutral – it‟s
fine 22%
25% fine
17% 29%
Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied 46%
50%

10. glhearn.com

11. Local authorities‟ views

12. Key Findings
Greatest challenges
• Over the last three years: • Over the next three years:
‒ Maintaining services with ‒ Maintaining services with
reduced resources reduced resources
‒ Legislative change causing ‒ Legislative change causing
uncertainty/complication uncertainty/complication
‒ Development viability ‒ Getting plans / policy in place
‒ Delivering housing ‒ Delivering housing
‒ Increased expectations in the
„post-Localism‟ world

13. glhearn.com

14. Applicants‟ and local authorities‟
views

15. Key Findings
Attitude to reform
• Thinking generally about the Government‟s agenda, do you think it will
materially:
‒ Deliver more homes and economic growth?
• Yes: 32% applicants & 12% LPAs
‒ Produce a faster and leaner planning system?
• No: 79% applicants & 83% LPAs
‒ Overall, increase or decrease development activity?
• Neither increase nor decrease: 71% applicants & 88% LPAs

16. Key findings
What would make the biggest difference?
• Applicants‟ views on what would • Local authorities‟ priorities for
make the biggest difference to improvement
performance
‒ Processing applications faster ‒ CIL
‒ Empowerment of officers / de-politicise ‒ Production of policy documents /
the system
‒ Improvement to evidence base
‒ Investment in LPAs
‒ Pre-app consultation
‒ Increase accountability
‒ Training of members
‒ More commercial culture
‒ Size and budget of planning depts.
‒ Clear delivery frameworks
‒ Involving members in pre-apps
‒ Increase accessibility to officers
‒ Speeding up delivery of decisions
‒ Pro-growth agenda
‒ Improved policy documents
‒ Further training for officers & members
‒ Increased consistency

17. London
What‟s happening on the ground

18. The Annual London Development Management Survey
• All 33 London Boroughs were surveyed
• Objective - review management of all major planning applications
• Major planning applications - 10 or more dwellings, residential sites over
0.5 ha, non-residential sites over 1 ha or creation/change of use of over
1,000 sq. m. gross
• Timeframe - 12 month period preceding publication of NPPF in April 2012
• Benchmark year from which post NPPF change can be measured

19. Major Applications Determined in London 2011-12, by Borough
Kensington & Chelsea, 12
Kingston-upon-Thames, 10
Richmond-upon-Thames, 14
Haringey, 21 Barking & Dagenham, 10
Bexley, 18
Enfield, 22
Westminster, 89
Lewisham, 23
Merton, 23
Waltham Forest, 23 Southwark, 75
Newham, 23
Harrow, 23 Tower
Hamlets, 57
Sutton, 25
Wandsworth, 26 Hounslow, 55
Ealing, 27
Hillingdon, 47
Croydon, 27
Brent, 41
Havering, 28
City of London, 33
Hackney, 41
Redbridge, 33
Greenwich, 38
Islington, 34
Hammersmith & Fulham, 34 Lambeth, 37
Bromley, 35 Camden, 36
Barnet, 35

20. Certainty - Time - Cost

21. Certainty

22. Approval Rate of Major Applications
100%
90%
Percentage of Major Applications Permitted
80%
70%
60%
50%
All London Boroughs

24. Number of major applications decided
vs. approval rate Westminster
Brent
No. of Major applications determined
Hammersmith &
Fulham
Redbridge
City of
London
Proportion of Major Applications Approved

25. Likelihood of Committee Overturning Recommendations
20%
18%
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
No recommendations for major applications overturned
by committee in 19 out of the 33 London Boroughs
2%
0%
All London Boroughs

26. Time

27. Time To Determine Major Applications
120
100
80
Weeks taken to determine
60
40
20
Validation to determination
0
All London Boroughs

28. Time To Determine Major Applications
120
100
80
Weeks taken to determine
60
40
35 week average determination
20
0
All London Boroughs

29. Time To Determine Major Applications
120
100
80
Weeks taken to determine
60
40
20
13 week target determination
0
All London Boroughs

30. Time To Determine Major Applications
120
100
80
Weeks taken to determine
60
1 year DCLG target
determination (inc. appeal)
40
20
0
All London Boroughs

31. Time To Determine Major Applications
120
100
31 week average inquiry
80
Weeks taken to determine
60
40
20
0
All London Boroughs

32. Time To Determine Major Applications
120
100
2 years
80
Weeks taken to determine
60
40
20
0
All London Boroughs

33. Time taken vs Approval rate
100
90
Redbridge
80
Weeks to determine applications
Hammersmith
Enfield & Fulham
70 Westminster
Croydon Bexley
60
50
40
30
Barking &
Dagenham
20
50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%
Proportion of major applications approved

34. Appeals Decided (Average all Boroughs)
120 100%
90%
100
80%
70%
Number of appeals determined
Percentage of appeals allowed
80
60%
60 50% Number of appeals determined
Percentage of appeals allowed
40%
40
30%
20%
20
10%
0 0%
2008-9 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

35. Cost

36. Costs of a Planning Application
£30,000
£25,000
£20,000
Mayoral Pre-App Fee
£15,000
Local Pre-App Fee
Application Fee
£10,000
£5,000
£0
2007 2012 2013

37. Application costs in context
Affordable Housing/CIL
?
S106
£0.94m
Application costs

38. Community Infrastructure Levy
Progress in London (2012 & 2013)

39. Points for discussion

40. glhearn.com

41. Creating a service culture
• Would applicants support an increase in application fees if, in return, a
„service contract‟ with the LPA was put in place?
• Could a new style PPA work if it had teeth and guaranteed a timetable and
standards and embodied principles such as:
‒ Urgency
‒ Transparency
‒ Accessibility
‒ Accountability
‒ Consistency
• Would it be right for applicants to be able to „Opt out‟ and go straight to
inspectorate if authorities are placed in „special measures‟ ?
• Should central government funding relate to performance?

42. Thank you
glhearn.com

43. The Government‟s objective
Steve Quartermain,
Chief Planner for England, Department of Communities and Local
Government
18 September 2012
glhearn.com

44. The Local Planning Authority‟s view
Sue Foster,
Executive Director Housing Regeneration & Environment,
London Borough of Lambeth
18 September 2012
glhearn.com

45. The applicant‟s view
Adrian Penfold,
Head of Planning and Corporate Responsibility, British Land
18 September 2012
glhearn.com

46. The two cultures of planning?
Adrian Penfold www.britishland.com
Head of Planning and Corporate Responsibility

47. Outline
• The Hampton Review
• The Killian Pretty Review
• The Penfold Review
• Public and private sectors - differences and similarities
• Conclusions
47

48. The Hampton Review
Principles of better regulation
• Transparent
• Accountable
• Proportionate
• Consistent
• Targeted – only at cases where action is needed
Assessing our Regulatory System – The Hampton Review (2005)
48

49. The Killian Pretty Review
Reinforcing a service culture – the decision maker’s view:
• Applications not fit for purpose
• Relational nature of the process – trust and understanding
• Limits of frontline staff empowerment – political process
• Resourcing difficult
• Perverse incentives from targets
The Killian Pretty Review: Planning applications - A faster and more
responsive system: Final Report (2008) 49

50. The Penfold Review
Strengthening service culture
• Publish service standards
• Improve coordination of consenting bodies
• Improve accessibility of information and guidance
• Survey customer satisfaction
Resource pressure
• Joint working
• Charging
The Penfold Review of non-planning consents (2011)
50

51. In your experience…
* Local Planning Authority survey results, GL Hearn and British Property Federation (2012)
ƚ Developer and applicants survey results, GL Hearn and British Property Federation (2012)
51

52. Public sector vs private sector
The Leadership Trust „Leadership in the public sector – is it different?‟ (2009)
Based on a survey by Ashridge 52

53. Public sector vs private sector
The Leadership Trust „Leadership in the public sector – is it different?‟ (2009)
Based on a survey by Ashridge 53

54. Planning professional competences
54

55. Private sector and public sector - cultures
55

56. Goals and objectives
To ensure that the Borough Council has a robust plan to ensure
planning decisions are in accordance with the strategic needs of the
town and that the plan is prepared in sufficient time to ensure that
it maximises developer contributions and avoids planning by
appeal
56

57. Conclusions
Areas for improvement
• Education/CPD
• Interchange
– Career change
– Secondments
• Status of planner in organisation
• Transparency
• Targets
• Escalation
• Resources
• Accreditation of experts
• Fees
57

58. THANK YOU
www.britishland.com
58
58

59. The Greater London Authority‟s role
Stewart Murray,
Assistant Director of Planning, Greater London Authority
18 September 2012
glhearn.com

60. “Delivering the
Government’s reforms”:
the London response
BPF/GL Hearn event
18 September 2012
Stewart Murray
Assistant Director – Planning, GLA

61. London is different….
• Democratically: Mayor, City & 32 London Boroughs
• Organisationally: London Plan and Local Plans =
Development Plan
• Demographics/economics: net contributor to national
recovery, plus tackling its own issues – with partnership
working/investment
• Growth: Only Region where house prices rising and
growth/jobs being delivered significantly. Census 2011
• Focus on delivering outcomes desired by national
policy – through London localism: at neighbourhood,
borough and London-wide levels

62. Government’s reforms….
• NPPF (what happens to the remaining guidance?)
• Secretary of State Statement 6 Sept.12
 Growth Measures
 Planning Reforms / Streamlining
• Mayor’s response: 13 Sept.12 Letter to Mr Pickles: -
 Supports big investment in housing development and key infrastructure
 Opportunities for Private Rented Sector and Empty Homes brought into use
 Changes of Use (commercial) and PD relaxations
 Public Sector Land & Property Holdings – innovative investment models
 Prioritisation of Major Strategic Developments and Planning Applications
 Stronger Collaboration and GLA / London Boroughs Partnerships
 Take Over more high profile and cross-borough planning applications
 Lead on S.106 reviews and development/housing viability –skills and effective solutions
 GLA greater role, rather than PINS, on key strategic development decisions

63. Revised Early Minor Alterations to
London Plan
• Presumption in favour of sustainable development: in principle,
the Plan is the London expression of the NPPF
 87 policies consistent with NPPF, 33 policies consistent in substance
 1 policy inconsistent: affordable housing definition (EIP November)
• Affordable Housing and Affordable Rent: new policy position;
realism and responsibility in addressing housing need and funding
• Minor updates e.g.
 Localism Act
 Neighbourhood planning
 Duty to cooperate
 Community based initiatives for renewable and low carbon energy
 S106 & CIL
 Cycle parking

64. Implementation….
• “Barriers to Housing Delivery” project: complementing Government
elsewhere in the country
• Real partnership working at area / site level – Boroughs/Developers
• OAPFs: focusing on delivery through partnership working
• The Olympic legacy: MDC in action: Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park
• New Delivery Vehicles: Dev Corporations/EZs: any further potential?
• Enhancing quality and streamlining housing standards: Housing SPG
• S.106 renegotiation: role for GLA in London
• Strategic support for Neighbourhood Planning: Shaping Places SPG
• Mayoral Funding Support: Outer London Fund / Regeneration Fund

65. Other new strategic challenges
• Population: latest ONS projections and Census: -
1 million extra people in London (a new Birmingham inside M25?)
Population increase could almost double relative to 2011 London Plan?
What does this mean for household growth?
Densities and household size gone up
• Employment: back to 2007/8 peak
What can planning do to sustain growth in current economic environment?
• Further Alterations to London Plan policy:
Policy and implementation responses to tackle key issues
 e.g. new SHLAA, Borough housing targets revised
 housing and commercial requirements/provision
 ageing and younger population; increased student numbers
 social / community infrastructure, i.e. schools/health

66. How might these affect London’s structure?

67. Other Mayoral planning documents
•Coming out this Autumn:
•London Planning Statement
•Housing SPG
•London Office Policy Review
•Industry & Transport SPG
•Note on duty to cooperate and the London Plan
•Draft SPG on Crossrail s106/CIL
•Later in 2012/13:
•Draft Sustainable Design and Construction SPG
•Draft guidance on hazardous substances
•Draft Town Centres SPG

68. Build your own home – the London
way
• Guidance published 28 July
• £3m resource funding to help community groups work up
designs, potentially culminating in a Community Right to
Build Order
• GLA keen to promote this through Neighbourhood
planning forums
• CRTB@london.gov.uk – for more information
• £5m development loan finance for custom build
- Design for London organising event 28 September
2012
- CBH@london.gov.uk – for more information

69. Other things to watch out for.....
• Mayor's "2020 Vision“
 Prioritising Implementation Delivery/Opportunity Areas
 GLA Land Holdings – leverage and unlocking development
• Government: Taking forward the ministerial "housing
and planning" statement in London:
"failing" LPAs
 unpicking s106s
 changes to major infrastructure thresholds
 design standards
• CIL & Funding Priorities - Potential changes
 "technical" changes (s73) and wider changes: BPF Group
 Boroughs / developers/ land owners prepared to fast-track
development will improve Mayoral funding potential

70. Questions?
GLA Planning
Email: stewart.murray@london.gov.uk;

71. Debate
Liz Peace,
Chief Executive, British Property Federation
18 September 2012
glhearn.com

72. Conclusions and next steps
Liz Peace,
Chief Executive, British Property Federation
18 September 2012
glhearn.com

73. Close
Thank you
glhearn.com