This week, after 34 days of hearings covering 94 matters, the examination finally came to a close. Following the Easter recess, these last three weeks have focused primarily on waste, infrastructure, retailing and viability. Representatives of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government have been present throughout.

In the social infrastructure session, we argued that the omission of any reference to practical delivery in Policy S1, or its supporting text, needs to be addressed. We suggested that Infrastructure Delivery Plans would be the best means for identifying the mechanisms to ensure delivery and the appropriate prioritisation of developer contributions according to local circumstances at the borough level.

In respect of Policy S4 play and informal recreation, we sought a more flexible approach to standards and provision. Each borough must assess local need and develop local play strategies, so it follows that they should therefore have more discretion to tailor their own play standards and requirements according to local circumstances.

At the session dealing with air quality, David Smith, the chair, noted that draft Policy SI1 focuses on assessing development proposals and suggested that it should contain guidance for Local Plans; however, the GLA contested that this had been a deliberate change in emphasis. We – and many other participants – have argued that there needs to be a definition for Air Quality Positive and clarification over the Mayor’s expectations for this new concept. The GLA advised that guidance on this will be forthcoming in the form of an SPG, but when pressed on timing said that, whilst they recognise this is ​‘reasonable priority’ in terms of implementation of the Plan, they cannot commit to a timescale at this stage.

Our penultimate hearing session concerned the new Policy, E9D, on hot food takeaways, which seeks to prevent any new A5 use within 400m of a school. Whilst we all fully support the overarching aim to reduce childhood obesity, we participated in this session because the policy is a perfect example of the Plan being overly prescriptive and diving into matters better dealt with by the boroughs, which naturally have a deeper understanding of local issues. E9D is a blunt policy tool that sets a worrying precedent for future strategic policies.

And, finally, we reached the session that many of us had been looking forward to – viability – which drew together many of the points raised throughout the preceding sessions regarding the impact of the Plan’s policies on cumulative viability and, ultimately, deliverability. The session was chaired by William Fieldhouse, and it was good to see such strong representation from the development industry, which hopefully sent a persuasive message to the panel about the strength of feeling from those involved in practical delivery. 

During questioning, the GLA confirmed that the GLA will be using their evidence to judge viability on a scheme-by-scheme basis. They also asserted that further viability work at a local level will not be necessary. However, what was absolutely clear from the discussion is that thorough viability testing will still need to take place at Local Plan stage. 

We remain concerned that during this process the GLA keep referring to land values – and the need to control them – as justification for their approach. The overwhelming feeling amongst the participants was that the evidence base presented by the Mayor was not commensurate with the detail of the Plan. Therefore, either the Plan needs to be stripped back and made more strategic in nature, or the evidence base needs to be more thorough and the policies more robustly tested if the detailed development management policies are to be retained. 

In conclusion, we remain deeply concerned that the cumulative impact of various new policies in the Plan has not been properly assessed and that there is a serious risk that the Plan will have a harmful impact on development viability across London. We urged the panel to clarify that the Mayor’s evidence should not be used to determine viability on an individual scheme basis and, furthermore, that the panel recommends that any future viability assessment on a London-wide basis is better evidenced, more robustly tested, and involves genuine collaboration with the industry. 

In total, London First submitted 39 written statements and participated in 24 hearing sessions during the EiP process. I would like to say a huge thank you to all those who have contributed to our work throughout the process to ensure we have represented the collective interests of our Members. A particular thank you to Dan Jestico of Iceni Projects and Robert Fourt and Alexander Vaughan-Jones of Gerald Eve for their support on sustainability and viability matters.

As I reflect on the process to date, I feel confident that the panel of inspectors has fully grasped the issues and that they understand where the weaknesses lie in the Mayor’s strategy and evidence base. They haven’t given a great deal away in terms of their thinking, but their questioning has certainly drilled down into the key issues on each matter and they put the GLA under particular pressure in the sessions on housing strategy, small sites, industrial land, affordable workspace, green belt and viability, all of which were big issues for us. Meanwhile, as the process has gone on, the GLA have become more and more defensive – and less inclined to collaborate. 

Only time will tell whether the panel conclude that the Plan passes the tests of soundness. However, it’s clearly not in anyone’s best interests to totally derail this more ambitious Plan. A lot needs to be done to make it more effective and ensure the practical delivery of its objectives. I suspect that the likely outcome will be a panel report that identifies the Plan’s shortcomings and recommends an immediate review. Many of you will recall that this was the precise outcome of the previous EiP in 2014 for the FALP version of the London Plan – and yet it’s still taken us five years to get back to this point. It will all depend on the strength of the recommendations in the report, and one can only hope they will trigger some constructive talks behind the scenes between the Mayor and the Secretary of State.

Next stages:

• By end of June – the GLA will publish a consolidated version of the Draft London Plan incorporating all minor suggested changes, further suggested changes and the changes agreed in the hearing sessions
• September – the Panel will issue their report to the GLA
• November – the GLA have eight weeks to consider the report before they have to make it public and they will need to write to the SoS if they do not intend to adopt the recommendations of the Panel
• January – the SoS then has six weeks to consider any submissions and decide if they want to intervene
• ‘Early 2020’ – the Mayor’s target for adopting the Plan