This block of Examination hearing sessions has focused on detailed housing matters, together with design and heritage. The sessions have mostly been chaired by Inspector Roisin Barrett. 

In terms of general tone, the determination of the Mayor’s team to defend their policies at all cost, rather than come to the table for any constructive negotiation, seems to have strengthened even further over this two-week period. This was especially the case in the affordable housing session. They stressed that the strategic affordable housing target needs to be challenging, but deliverable, and they used every possible opportunity to highlight the constraints London faces as a result of the central government funding regime.

In terms of the Threshold Approach to affordable housing (Policy H6), most participants support the principle, but they have concerns with regard to the inflexibility of the policy wording, particularly on tenure mix. Representatives of the only borough present, Brent, noted that they support the Threshold Approach because they have seen a step change in how developers approach schemes, but they think the Mayor now needs to take a more sophisticated look at how this operates at a local level.

We have been concerned about the unrealistic expectation for 50% affordable housing on industrial land and public land. On the former, the Mayor’s team responded that industrial land is becoming scarce, so if it does come forward for development, the Mayor wants to recoup maximum public benefit. The Minor Suggested Change that the 35% threshold can apply to schemes where there is no net loss of industrial capacity is at least welcomed. 

Our main takeaway from the affordable housing session was that there are unlikely to be any significant changes to these policies. The Mayor’s team defended their position very strongly and are clearly not interested in negotiating on any aspects.

The half-day session allocated to all five types of specialist housing was always going to be challenging time-wise, but this was exacerbated by the Mayor’s Further Suggested Changes, including significant changes to Policies H13 (Build to Rent) and H15 (Specialist older persons housing). Accordingly, only Policies H15 and H17 (Purpose-built student accommodation) were covered on the day; the session will be reconvened on Tuesday 12 March to discuss the remaining three.

There was a confrontational debate on older persons housing, and the threat of a legal challenge was raised on more than one occasion. On student accommodation, there were differing views amongst the participants on the requirement for a nomination agreement with an institution and how this relates to the Mayor pushing for 35% affordable housing in this sector.

Design

Moving on to design matters, our main objections on these policies relate to the extensive reproduction of generic best practice guidance and, consequently, policies that are unnecessarily long and fail to meet the tests of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 or the NPPF in terms of dealing with strategic matters that are specific to Greater London. On this point, the Mayor’s team argued that it is necessary to afford the criteria in D1 (London’s form and characteristics), D2 (Delivering good design) and D8 (Tall buildings) the weight of strategic policy, due to the level of growth envisaged. But why not simply cross-reference to the relevant guidance documents instead? 

On the issue of expertise and resources within the boroughs to deal with all the extra work expected of them by D1 and D2, the Mayor’s team said that they are looking at ways to upskill borough planners as part of the Homebuilding Capacity Fund. They concluded, ​“Ignoring this issue isn’t a tenable alternative in terms of delivering good growth.” It was clear that the standardised approach to design review and the architect retention clause proposal had both been requested by the Mayor’s Design Advisory Group and there was no room for further negotiation.

Density

On density, the Mayor’s rationale for removing the density matrix is that it has become a misleading starting point for designing a scheme. All participants, bar London First and the HBF, argued to reinstate the matrix and enforce it more strongly. We remain of the view that it is ineffective and should be removed. We suggested setting minimum densities, as per the direction of travel for national policy, and to help safeguard against anti-growth boroughs setting conservative local densities. The GLA consider this unnecessary because they don’t generally have issues with developments coming forward at too low densities, although some of our members trying to develop in certain outer London boroughs may be inclined to disagree.

The draft Plan’s new ​‘bottom up’ approach to tall buildings, whereby the boroughs make detailed site allocations through the Local Plan process, is apparently driven by widespread public concern that there is not enough clarity on where tall buildings are likely to come forward. The tide seems to have well and truly turned on tall buildings; it was impossible to ignore the overwhelmingly negative sentiment towards tall buildings from our fellow participants, including a number of architects. Indeed, we seemed to be the only organisation flying the flag for the positive role that tall buildings can play in delivering growth in appropriate locations. As part of the discussion, the Mayor’s team agreed to prepare a new SPG on tall buildings to deal with the criteria for assessing their impact, including broader environmental and community criteria. The SPG will also seek to provide greater differentiation between residential and commercial tall buildings than has been the case previously.

Finally, a positive note to finish on in respect of protected views. We previously objected to the Mayor’s proposal to afford local views the same degree of protection as strategic views. The Mayor’s Further Suggested Changes propose to water this down, although we have argued that the relevant wording still requires further clarification. It was widely acknowledged in the protected views discussion that there is a need for greater sophistication in the LVMF approach, and the Mayor has committed to consult on updating the LVMF SPG.

Hearing sessions resume on Monday 18 March to discuss policies relating to the economy and green infrastructure.