Written evidence submitted by Southwark Council [FPS 110]

 

The following evidence has been prepared by Southwark Council, the local planning authority for the London Borough of Southwark. Since 2004, we have approved 10,542 genuinely affordable homes. We are the largest landlord of social housing in the capital, fourth largest in the UK and our current programme of housebuilding is delivering over 35,000 new homes including 11,000 council homes by 2043 with a target of 50% being genuinely affordable to respond to the over 10,000 families on our housing waiting list. We recognise the need for the planning system to evolve but we are deeply concerned by the proposals set out in the Government’s White Paper – many are simply unworkable in an inner-London borough like Southwark whilst others represent an unacceptable threat to local democracy and the delivery of affordable housing for our communities.
 

Is the current planning system working as it should do? What changes might need to be made? Are the Government’s proposals the right approach?

  1. The Government makes the argument that the planning system is not working and that improvement is not an option as the transformation required is so radical. We do not accept this position. Whilst we do believe that there are many areas for improvement in the planning system, we have been very successful in Southwark in granting the planning permissions required to deliver our Fairer Future Promises.
  2. These proposals are a threat to local democracy, a threat to the delivery of genuinely affordable homes, and they barely mention the biggest threat to our way of life in the coming decades: the Climate Emergency. Moreover, these proposed reforms are not based on evidence. Consequently, we believe that the Government’s proposed changes to the planning system would be a fundamentally regressive step.              
     
  3. The planning system does not need to be discarded and replaced root and branch. We are delivering extremely successful development that proves that incremental improvements rather than wholesale changes are required.
     
  4. We are re-designing our planning service to deliver a plan-led service that sets out simply where and how the borough is going to develop and how we will decide whether developments have made an appropriate contribution. This should improve places and deliver jobs, homes, schools, healthy activities, shops and accessibility to benefit our communities. The plan and development must be accessible to all of our communities so that they can understand, engage, inform and influence this ambition for sustainable development.              
    Our main concerns with the Government’s proposals are summarised below:
     
  5. Implications for local democracy – A shift in emphasis to consulting local communities during the preparation of the Local Plan rather than on individual planning applications will leave residents with less say on planning decisions and undermine local democracy. Introducing a policy of automatic outline planning permission for certain areas would further reduce community engagement in the planning system.              
     
  6. Difficulties of a zoning approach – The introduction of Growth, Renewal and Protection zones would not fit with the complex urban environment in a city like London, where conservation and growth takes place side by side.
     
  7. Community infrastructure changes - We are deeply concerned that the proposed introduction of a new nationally-set charge to replace the Community Infrastructure Levy and the use of section 106 agreements will negatively impact the delivery of affordable and social housing and much-needed investment in local infrastructure and facilities. Despite the suggestion that more money will be raised than at present, the proposed Infrastructure Levy will have a minimum threshold below which no charge would be applied. If the levy is not collected on all development there will not be enough funding for infrastructure, schools, health facilities, public spaces and other essential amenities.
     
  8. Currently, s106 agreements provide for both financial and non-financial mitigation of the negative impacts of individual planning applications. For example, in Southwark employment and skills obligations in s106 agreements has created over 1400 jobs and 400 apprenticeships since 2014. Without a specific mechanism to negotiate and impose these obligations on developers, we will lose the opportunity to improve the development for local communities and ensure their needs are taken into consideration.              
     
  9. Design Codes - The proposed introduction of a National Design Code appears to be an attempt to reduce design to a tick-box exercise.  In our view design is defined by its local context, and cannot be constrained by one overriding rule or code. Design codes are less useful in areas like Southwark that have diverse and complex areas of mixed uses. Any new legislation runs the risk of stifling innovation and resulting in a monoculture of development, rather than the rich urban tapestry we see today.             
     

 

 

In seeking to build 300,000 homes a year, is the greatest obstacle the planning system or the subsequent build-out of properties with permission?

  1. The Government’s proposals include wide ranging suggestions to streamline the planning process to speed it up. However, the focus is not on the processes which slow down development – i.e. delivery - and instead place emphasis on the consultation and local provision of policy and decisions on planning applications.
     
  2. In Southwark we are already delivering significant permissions for new development every year with considerable involvement from our local communities. The proposed reforms would significantly slow down delivery of new development and reduce the number of homes - especially affordable homes - and all of the associated improvements to our town centres and neighbourhoods. Where development does take place, this would be of an inferior standard and would not integrate with the current communities who live in Southwark.

 

  1. The principle obstacle to the building of new homes is not the planning system but the actual delivery and build-out of homes once they have been granted permission. A recent Local Government Association study found that only around half of homes consented in recent years have actually been built.             
     
  2. Decisions about smaller developments can be streamlined and the timescales shortened through digitisation. This work is already taking place and does not require a change to the planning system. We are introducing new digital systems to speed up the provision of planning information and the determination of planning applications online and digitisation of the entire Planning Service. Digital templates, standardisation and a streamlined approach for developers, residents and everyone who wants to find out about a planning application would be welcomed. This requires continuation of the funding and support that MHCLG are providing and we will continue to work on these projects to lead the way in making our services accessible and available to all of our different communities.
     
  3. However, we know that Major and Strategic applications & development proposals very rarely comply with all planning policies, and councillors and planning officers need to balance these issues and make a judgement about their acceptability. Decisions about larger developments are usually slow because developers would like to challenge the system, or would like to bring forward innovative design which was not included in the development plan. The unique skills and expertise that planners bring to the process are essential to ensure that communities are heard and that there is value from developments for local communities.
  4. We have gathered evidence from a wide range of sources and views from colleagues and key stakeholders involved in the planning and housing delivery process in order to understand the potential influencing factors and obstacles to housing delivery. This information has been considered alongside direct knowledge of local sites, land and development capacity through working with developers and the GLA. The identified key issues and barriers are set out below.

 

  1. Site specific
      1. Brownfield sites in high value areas, such as inner London are almost never unoccupied but, on the contrary, are occupied by people who have leases that often have several years to run. So the typical major/strategic application is made by the prospective developer some years before the expiry of these leases to safeguard their ability to get vacant possession in due course.
      2. Buying and selling land: undeveloped sites being in private ownership as an investment can lead to a delay in delivery as owners wait for the value to increase or obtain planning permission to develop the land and then sell it at a profit. This can delay and prevent housing delivery.
      3. Reliance on a number large strategic sites and growth areas that take a long time to be developed.
      4. Competition for land results in high land prices.

 

Planning process and planning obligations

      1. Community engagement and consultation helps generate interest and input to planning decisions, but can also raise inappropriate expectations amongst consultees which can cause delays for both developers and consultees.
      2. Agreeing developer contributions to affordable housing and infrastructure can delay delivery.
      3. Strong local opposition and a default position to object can cause delays for housing delivery.
      4. Better quality applications, detailed pre-application advice, consultation responses on time and more resources are needed to assess planning applications.
      5. Compulsory Purchase Order and Judicial Review procedures are lengthy processes, preventing developments to come forward in an efficient and timely manner.

 

Finance and infrastructure

      1. Larger sites are often built out much more slowly, as they are often reliant on new services and infrastructure before the new development.
      2. Lack of funding to deliver infrastructure.
      3. Awaiting wider infrastructure delivery.              
         

Resources

      1. Funding cuts from central government lead to pressures in how LPAs provide services.
      2. Housing delivery is dependant on the supply of materials and skilled professionals of which there is a shortage.

 

Better collaboration and coordination is needed between LPAs, Housing Associations, developers and the GLA.              

Inefficient back office and data management system delays processing and determining applications.             
 

How can the planning system ensure that buildings are beautiful and fit for purpose?

  1. There is no way to define beauty as it is in the eye of the beholder, and it could easily become a way for developers to secure unsatisfactory or even damaging designs or to prevent progressive designs using new technologies and solutions.
     
  2. The White Paper includes what appears to be a top-down assessment of ‘beauty’ and an emphasis on appearance, not a reinforcement of local distinctiveness, history and place-making. ‘Beauty’ is subjective and nebulous and for many developers, will depend on what they can afford. It could also imply the loss of historic structures can be justified by beauty alone.              
     
  3. NPPF Paragraph 127 says that there are very wide ranging requirements for good design which are much broader than the requirement for beauty, which is a narrow definition. We would welcome the reinforcement of local character but this will require borough-wide assessment of character and a thorough knowledge of historic development. We would also encourage a wider definition of ‘beauty’ to include an emphasis on high quality urban design and architectural design (as set out in the Southwark Plan). Furthermore, the consideration of design needs to consider usability, not just an arbitrary judgement about what something looks like. This could also stifle innovation as many major house builders already have pattern books.             
     
  4. The White Paper proposes the introduction of Design Codes which would replace the ability for design frameworks to set out how design will be negotiated locally and how design should be presented.             
     
  5. The definition of a National Code appears to be an attempt to reduce design to a tick-box exercise, a pre-ordained urban pattern, an agreed palette of materials and a pre-defined lifestyle that the government hopes to impose on communities. When applied at the scale that the government is anticipating this could lead to a discord from the tailored trajectory of development which is embedded into our own design policies.              
     
  6. Production of design codes can be useful in areas where there are large developments with housing or another single use or developments of new, large areas around some active uses. Design codes are less useful in Central London as areas such as Southwark have established, mixed and complex areas of historic buildings often on a historic, narrow street pattern which are being improved by world class developments to provide particular uses and build distinctive places. These areas benefit from design requirements for smaller areas and sites which are more complex and detailed than codes for wider areas.
     
  7. In the same way, defining beauty is not appropriate for an inner city borough like Southwark which includes enormous steel and glass towers, large inner-city estates, and characterful village-like suburbs, each with their unique urban form, materials and features. By defining ‘beauty’ rigidly, any legislation runs the risk of stifling innovation, which every designer and developer hope to bring to their project. In Southwark we think there are rules of good urban and architectural design but these are rooted in the character of the place and in peer review. For a National Code to be effective, we believe it should embed the principles of area characterisation and peer review as a minimum. Together with a good set of design standards, this could be a better way forward for development in our established communities.             
     
  8. For more than a decade we have prepared area characterisation studies for all of our Area Action Plan and SPD areas. We have used our area characterisation studies to encourage suitable development, identifying opportunities, and develop management guidance and at the same time recognising those parts of the study area that our communities value, the social infrastructure and patterns of movement and use that define the place. This has led to significant densification in many parts of Southwark in many cases alongside sensitive historic districts resulting in social and economic benefits.             
     
  9. A National Design Code should encourage every local authority to prepare area characterisation studies for their areas and include management guidance for developers about the appropriate pattern of development, the social infrastructure that is necessary to accommodate the anticipated development, and the capacity for change in the area Where the current plan making system lacks clarity in respect of site specific development, it is acknowledged that this can slow down process, as neither land owners, developers, local communities or local politicians are sure of what is required to go where. This can lead to antagonism and frustration for all involved, undermining trust. We already prepare detailed designed masterplans in our Local Plans and they set the design for new communities to deliver the land uses, movement and other planning requirements. World class architects and local architects then design the specific schemes to ensure that they contribute positively to the areas being developed.
     
  10. The plans for these areas and sites should provide clarity, whilst also striking the right balance between instruction and flexibility so that they can robustly manage change over the whole plan period. As such they shouldn’t be absolutely prescriptive, but the key principles that they describe will be expected to be delivered. These would include, height, land use, building typology, architectural design principles, servicing, and provision of public amenities such as park space, affordable housing and CIL requirements and consequent site capacity.
     
  11. This would be a design framework, rather than a design code. The latter implies a rigidity that would be too brittle to survive contact with the real world and could stifle creativity, limiting responsiveness to changes in the economy and society - such as COVID. The former would achieve the greater certainty that would be desirable for everyone involved and affected by development, without recreating the problems the White Paper is trying to resolve.             
     
  12. Southwark has a Chief Officer for design and place making and a resourced team working on these issues. The emphasis is on beautiful and distinctive places reflecting what is special about their local area and creating a high quality environment where local people are proud. We also have a design review panel of leading and local architects that provide comments on policy and applications and a community panel in the Old Kent Road that also provides comments on policy and applications.             
     

What approach should be used to determine the housing need and requirement of a local authority?               

  1. We are opposed to the White Paper’s proposal for introducing a new standard method for establishing housing requirements, on the grounds that it does provide an effective framework for addressing housing need and the local context of London.             
     
  2. We consider the London scale to be the most appropriate for the housing requirements and housing targets. Whilst the methodology always sets a challenging target and requires London boroughs to work together to meet the housing need. It would be helpful if the London Plan was more spatial and the process of producing it more cooperative. It could provide clarity and a degree of leadership/arbitration about cross borough issues. As boroughs we could also reflect each others plans and if they have more graphic representation it should be easier to see where the gaps are.                  
     
  3. The introduction of Growth, Renewal and Protection zones can not in any form be applied in London. This is because the complex nature of cities where conservation and growth takes place side by side needs more sophisticated assessments. The proposals for growth, renewal and conservation work well in areas where there are specific uses that can be zoned. Zoning is too blunt a tool for complex urban areas with a fine grained mix of uses, scales and character areas. In a central London borough such as Southwark most of the development takes place in or around conservation areas. The urban grain is too fine to distinguish between uses as a mix of vibrant activity alongside employment, industry and homes contribute to the different communities that have developed in and around town centres. We are concerned that adopting this simplified approach would not facilitate effective planning decisions, but rather would create an unworkable framework for our borough.             
     
  4. The UK is in the midst of a housing crisis, which is being felt most acutely in London and in boroughs like Southwark. With over 13,700 households on waiting lists for social housing and with demand for affordable homes still rising, our priority is the delivery of high quality homes for all of our local residents – particularly in the social rented and intermediate sectors.              
     
  5. The Government’s proposal to change the threshold for affordable housing to a possible 50 units is extremely damaging. In the past five years, schemes of 11 to 49 units have delivered 759 affordable homes. Moreover, schemes providing between 11 and 50 units accounted for an average of 37% of the total net homes delivered in Southwark. Based on the historical record, there will likely be 8,716 units coming forward from those schemes over the coming ten years under the housing target of at least 2,355 homes per year for Southwark. Were the new threshold to be in place, there would be a potential loss of at least 3,050 affordable homes – or 37% - over the next decade. Proceeding with these proposals in their current form would therefore be disastrous for the delivery of Southwark’s housing targets.             

What is the best approach to ensure public engagement in the planning system? What role should modern technology and data play in this?

  1. Southwark Council’s planning team are at the forefront of developing accessible, digital, web-based plans and development management processes. They are carrying out a digital transformation so that everyone can access the services easily, simply and efficiently. The vision is for a planning service that is accessible online by all of our different customers, which offers an excellent user experience and meets all user needs across website, tablet and smartphone. This must enable customers to find out about all aspects of the planning service online, apply for planning permission online and to follow each step of the application process. Southwark will be the first borough as far as we are aware to have a digital website with simplified data tools for all the different planning systems and data searches in 2021.             
     
  2. We recognize that MHCLG have been supporting us and other councils with funding to take forward these changes to improve our service. We value this support and we will continue to work in partnership to improve planning services for all of our citizens.             
     
  3. Digital templates, standardisation and a streamlined approach for developers, residents and everyone who wants to find out about a planning application would be welcomed. The proposed online, interactive map-based system would also be a very useful and welcome addition to the planning process. This requires continuation of the funding and support that MHCLG are already providing, and we will continue to work on our digital transformation projects to lead the way in making our services accessible and available to all of our different communities.
     
  4. The White Paper’s proposed shift in emphasis to consulting local communities during the Local Plan stage will undermine local democracy and accountability. Most people do not want to comment on strategic development plans; they are interested in specific proposals that affect their neighbourhood.             
     
  5. Introducing a policy of automatic outline planning permission for areas of substantial development would further threaten and reduce the role that communities and stakeholders play in the local planning system. Accountability is a cornerstone of local government that requires transparent and open opportunities for community engagement and consultation on planning proposals.

How can the planning system ensure adequate and reasonable protection for areas and buildings of environmental, historical, and architectural importance?

  1. It is essential that Government recognises the democratic role played by local authorities in developing Local Plans, and, in the capital, through the Mayor’s London Plan process.               
     
  2. We currently protect buildings and areas using site allocations and designated areas. There are very strong protections for World Heritage Sites, Listed Buildings, Strategic and Local Views and Conservation Areas. We have policies to protect these sites and areas and their settings in the New Southwark Plan, and the London Plan protects strategic views. There is detailed guidance that is required and detailed processes that we have simplified and set out in our Heritage Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)  that is going out to consultation. This is being uploaded online to our website as a simple process that will speed up decision making and provide simpler information for the public. We also set out conservation and heritage protection in our Area Action Plans (AAP) such as the Old Kent Road, Canada Water and Peckham AAPs and Elephant and Castle and Blackfriars Road SPDs.              
     
  3. All of these documents are supported by very detailed conservation area appraisals that set out detailed building and street guidance of each area. This informs decision making about each planning application and supports regeneration decisions.              
     

What changes, if any, are needed to the green belt?

  1. N/A

 

October 2020