The Thorncliffe team

One of the curiosities of the London Mayoralty is that it takes almost an entire Mayoral four year term to revise the London Plan, so each Mayor’s planning policies come in only as they are ending their term. Sadiq Khan’s new London Plan is likely to be adopted in the next few months but the planning inspectors have dealt a couple of major blows.

Many boroughs (and not just Conservative ones) nearly had a fit when they saw a policy calmly headed ‘Small sites’, which would have imposed a presumption in favour of infill development and increased density on sites below 0.25 hectares with good transport connections. That it was serious was shown by jaw-droppingly high targets for new homes from such sites. Suburban densification is seen as hugely unpopular.

Hopes that the Planning Inspectorate would save the boroughs have been borne out: the inspectors find the policy “neither justified nor deliverable” and have cut the target for new homes from such sites to less than half. They accept it’s fewer than London needs.

With the Mayoral election now just over six months away, the sitting Mayor’s housing numbers are going to be a big topic. Sadiq Khan deliberately avoided setting himself clear targets before the 2016 election, reasoning that other factors out of his control (central Government and the state of the housing market) affected delivery. He can now point to his housing targets being cut by a central government body – but will critics point to a Mayor who has lots of excuses and not enough new homes?

The Inspectors have given both the Mayor and the boroughs a big political headache by demanding a review of the Green Belt so sites could be released for housing and industrial development. Anyone who has been out seeking votes around the edge of London knows that the Green Belt remains the magic word that makes even the ugliest site suddenly and massively controversial. The Mayor’s press office have been hyping his disagreement and saying he will be asking the Secretary of State to overrule it.

In truth Khan’s use of the London Plan to oppose a third runway at Heathrow always looked like it would be overturned: the inspectors were bound to apply national policy. The same goes for his attempt to use the London Plan to ban fracking. To regard both as essentially ‘political’ is not to denigrate them, but the inspector’s veto neatly links with the Green Belt review in a cogent argument that views it as an attack on the Mayor’s environmental agenda.

While housing and environmental policies have been altered, the inspectors have notably failed to intervene in several other areas many had predicted would be deleted. Very restrictive maximum parking standards were proposed for housing developments, which the then Secretary of State urged the Mayor to withdraw as inconsistent with national policy. The inspectors did not agree. Expect a series of confrontations as outer London boroughs (backed by residents complaining about lack of parking) resist the new policy.

Proposals to protect pubs from a change of use have also been endorsed, helped by extensive evidence the GLA was able to put together; expect councils to welcome their ability to back populist campaigns to save the local. The Mayor also wanted to use the London Plan to put strict fire safety requirements on new buildings; the Government objected that this was the job of building regulations, but the inspectors had no problem at all.

Some Conservatives had hoped the inspectors would find so many faults with the plan they would pause it, and prevent it being adopted before the Mayoral election. That hope was in vain, and in describing the plan as “aspirational but realistic” the inspectors could have been writing an election manifesto. But Sadiq Khan may now have to think up other ways of conjuring housing development sites that are not in the Green Belt.

Robert Jenrick (Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government): This government has been clear that we must build the homes that this country needs. However, this objective must not come at the expense of quality. The places we create must be ones that communities can be proud of, both now and in the future. Places that look beautiful, work well and provide environments in which people and communities can thrive.

Too many homes currently being built do not meet this test. They are not well-proportioned, fail to reflect the character of their local area and form part of neighbourhoods which are equally poorly designed, both in terms of their street layouts and their lack of landscaping and street trees.

I am committed to addressing this problem and driving up the quality of new homes. It was for this reason, that this government set up the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission to champion beautiful buildings. The Commission has been tasked with making recommendations to the government on how to promote and increase the use of high-quality design for new build homes and neighbourhoods. We have also hosted two national design quality conferences, bringing together industry leaders and Ministers to discuss how they can work together to ensure new developments across the country are well designed.

Today I can announce that we are going further and publishing new guidance, including the National Design Guide. This illustrated guide sets out the ten characteristics of beautiful and well-designed places. This provides a clear picture for home builders of what is required of them to build homes of sufficient quality.

The National Design Guide is also capable of being a material consideration in planning applications and appeals, meaning that, where relevant, local planning authorities should take it into account when taking decisions. This should help give local authorities the confidence to refuse developments that are poorly designed.

The illustrated National Design Guide emphasises the importance of responding positively to context, creating locally distinctive character, building strong communities, responding to future issues such as climate change and ensuring places sustain their quality. Alongside it, we have published new guidance on the processes and tools that can be used to achieve good design, and how to engage communities to ensure that developments reflect local views.

To provide further clarity on the principles of good design, we will produce a National Model Design Code in the new year which will set out recommended parameters for key elements of successful design. This will follow the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission’s final report due to be published in December and consider their recommendations.

The government understands that quality design does not look the same across different areas of the country, for instance, that by definition local vernacular differs. The National Model Design Code will therefore set a baseline standard of quality and practice across England. Local planning authorities will then be expected to take this into account when developing their own local design codes and guides and when determining planning applications.

The National Planning Policy Framework makes clear that authorities are expected to use design codes and guides to provide as much certainty as possible about what is likely to be acceptable in each area.

These design codes and guides should be developed as early as possible in the process, alongside the preparation of local policies, including neighbourhood plans, so that they are able to have the greatest impact on design. In the absence of local design guidance, local planning authorities will be expected to defer to the illustrated National Design Guide and National Model Design Code.

We will consult on the content of the National Model Design Code, including the factors to be considered when determining whether facades of buildings are of sufficiently high quality, how landscaping should be approached (including the importance of streets being tree-lined wherever possible), that new developments should utilise a pattern of clear front and backs, and that developments should clearly take account of local vernacular, architecture and materials.

All local authorities have a responsibility to ensure that the design of homes and places in their area is of a sufficiently high quality. This includes combined authorities and the need for elected Mayors to consider design quality and beauty in relation to growth and placemaking. Looking to the future, I intend to consider what more can be done to ensure that quality and beauty are fully embraced in the vision and requirements that apply in each area.

The publication of this design guidance is an important milestone in securing a step-change in the quality of design. By working together with a shared understanding of the homes we want to build and live in, we can create beautiful places where communities can thrive, with homes they can be proud of.

The National Design Guide can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-design-guide

I don’t think I’ve been to a public exhibition where a local resident hasn’t demanded to know about whether their pet project or local park can be funded.  Time and again, we hear residents complain that they don’t know where all that CIL money and S106 contributions will go.

As a YIMBY myself, there’s a big development near me going up, with a park next to it.  I told the local ward councillor to get an adult gym in the park, but who knows whether he took any notice.

As a developer, it’s difficult to reassure residents that the CIL money they hand over is being spent wisely, on local improving local infrastructure or public services.

That’s why the government’s new CIL regulations, which came into effect last week, are good for the industry, bringing better transparency for communities, councillors, developers and local authorities.

Local authorities are now legally bound to publish an annual record of CIL payments, and how every penny is spent. The old old ‘Regulation 123 list’ is being replaced by ‘infrastructure funding statements’.

The government also removed the upper limit on section 106 pooling that had previously prevented councils from pooling more than five S106 contributions into a single community project. 

We’ve just dealt with a new community project in Southwark, called 231 Old Kent Road at the heart of the Old Kent Road Area Action Plan – here the multi-use facility benefits significantly from S106 contributions from a whole host of developers.

Residents should now be a click away (maybe a few clicks) from investigating where every penny is spent, be that on a new bus stop, increased capacity at a local station, or new medical facilities.  And I will be able to find out about that adult gym.

Richard Patient

The gospel according to Boris’s government is that the last three years didn’t happen, and that anything that did happen, they are not responsible for. 

Is this a Vote Leave cabinet?

There are more cabinet members who voted Remain than voted Leave, but that masks the true nature of the government.  Boris, Dominic Raab, Priti Patel, Michael Gove, Andrea Leadsom, James Cleverly, Jacob Rees-Mogg are all Vote Leave alumni, but more importantly the backroom is stuffed full with them in the key positions – Dominic Cummings, Oliver Lewis, James Starkie, Robert Oxley.

It’s fair to say few people know Cummings – he doesn’t do small talk, and he would probably agree that he is mentally unstable (at least in public), but he is a ruthless operator, very hard working and extremely talented.  The answer to the question “how is the government going to leave the EU” is “ask Dom” (he’ll tell you on a need to know basis).

Dom is hated by many, but all his fans are ardent supporters – and frankly will do anything for him, including working prodigious hours, weekdays and weekends – there will be no holidays in No 10 this year. 

That team is working alongside the team from City Hall, led by Sir Ed Lister and including people like Ben Gascoigne, Will Walden, Munira Mirza – none of whom are Vote Leave ideologues.

• 

Is this a business-hating government?

We have read many articles (and briefing notes from other consultancies) claiming this will not be a business-friendly government.  To which we say nonsense – it will be a very enterprise and capitalist friendly, free-market government – but it will also not be afraid to tell business organisations that they don’t represent the whole of business.

The claim comes from Boris saying “**** business” (not made in public, but something that Boris has never denied), and will be reinforced by Dominic Cummings’ last stunt at the CBI conference, waving a banner saying “CBI: the Voice of Brussels”. 

It’s probably true, to take one example, that John Allan may find it much harder to get an invitation to a No 10 garden party this Summer if he comes wearing his CBI President’s hat; but come as chairman of Tesco or Barratt, and he will be welcome.

Boris’s first appointment was Sky’s Andrew Griffith, who will be working alongside James Starkie in No 10, and his last appointment on Wednesday (at 2 minutes to midnight) was Kwasi Kwarteng as Business Minister attending Cabinet.  Peter Cruddas of CMC Markets or Ben Elliott of Quintessentially is widely expected to get the chief executive’s job at CCHQ.

How will housing fare?

Robert Jenrick, a former Treasurer minister, is a good friend of both Boris and former Housing Minister Dominic Raab (and a friend of Thorncliffe). Robert is a corporate lawyer and never served as a councillor, so has little experience in the field of housing. He will be the new Secretary of State, replacing James Brokenshire, with his Vote Leave alumni Esther McVey as Housing Minister (her appointment is worrying the affordable housing campaigners). We predict Robert won’t be afraid to champion causes such as planning reform, stamp duty reductions, further release of public sector land, reform of Help to Buy (which he will think creates more demand rather than adds to supply) and releasing some of the lesser-valued green belt land.  Indeed, none other than Jacob Rees Mogg published a paper this week proclaiming the benefits of green belt reform.

Unless a miracle happens (or a catastrophe, depending on your viewpoint), Boris Johnson will be elected as Leader by Conservative Party members, and then become Prime Minister in ten days time. What does the property industry need to think about?

First the obvious – Brexit.

Again, depending on your viewpoint, you will see Brexit as either a colossal mistake or a wonderful enlightenment. What you should know is that Team Boris will do everything in its power to take us out of the EU by halloween. Or you could believe some who say Boris is the ultimate charlatan, who will renege spectacularly on this promise.

Whatever your viewpoint, this autumn will be not just a political spectacle, but an economic decision-making point.

Second – infrastructure

Boris likes a good infrastructure project. Boris Island is a classic, as is a bridge across to Ireland, and of course the Garden Bridge (which, incidentally, he blames Sadiq for cancelling after spending more public money). As PM, some of these wild dreams might actually become a reality.

Does that mean HS2 will get the go-ahead? No, he’s promised to review that, with a final decision by December, citing a business case which is not strong enough.

Does that mean Heathrow will be scrapped in favour of his Island? No, it looks like we won’t be seeing him lying down in front of the bulldozers quite yet.

Third – Ed Lister

Lots of developers fondly remember Ed Lister, now Sir Edward, at the GLA. Sir Ed has been spending his retirement at Homes England, but he’s now fully back on board with Boris. He’s currently drawing up plans for Boris’s first 100 days (until 31 October), minutely detailing who’s doing what, when and how.

Sir Ed, who is a great friend of Thorncliffe, is a great influence on Boris, some would say for the better. Critics say Boris doesn’t do detail – but advocates say Boris doesn’t need to, because he’s got people like Sir Ed.

Fourth – stamp duty

George Osborne racked up stamp duty, and Philip Hammond kept it there. It’s safe to say that no one in Boris’s team believes in the high levels of stamp duty. It’s a very safe bet that stamp duty will come down, probably at all levels. Boris, or more likely his chosen chancellor, will have to persuade the Treasury that they’ve been wrong for the past few years, and the Laffer curve will mean they will earn more money from the tax cut, not less. It’s a bold political move for Boris to reinstate stamp duty levels to where they were before, and he’ll have to have to some political cover to do so. But he probably will.

Fifth – Help to Buy and the young

Forget Brexit – when the next election comes around, the main topic of conversation will be house prices. Why they’re so high, and why young people can’t afford them. Like Brexit, it’s a potential existential crisis for the Conservative party.

Boris is distancing himself from the Help to Buy policy – he says it creates more demand rather than adding to supply.

Expect instead him to prioritise a whole raft of measures that helps build those homes, from further planning reform, to reducing restrictions on public sector land.

Boris’s dream cabinet?

We’ll know soon who he’ll pick, but here’s an (educated) guess of some of them:

Chancellor: Sajid Javid. No longer being confused with Sadiq Khan (that’s one of his own jokes), Saj once said the government should invest £50 billion in building homes, only for Philip Hammond to knock him down.

DexEU Minister: Dom Raab. Raab knows where the skeletons lie in Brussels, and is a hard line Brexiteer.

International Trade: Steve Baker. If you think Dom Raab is hard line, wait until you meet Steve Baker.

Secretary of State for Housing: Michael Gove. This is a bold guess, but Gove likes being given hard departments, and has no fears of shaking the whole thing up. Be warned.

Health: Matt Hancock. Why change the Health Secretary now?

Foreign Secretary: Jeremy Hunt.

International Development: Liz Truss. If she doesn’t get chancellor, she’ll need to be given a good role, and this fits in with her abilities.

Chief Whip: Gavin Williamson. This is a demotion for Gavin, but he is so good as Chief Whip that he has to do the job.

BEIS: James Brokenshire. James is a supporter of Boris and needs a job if he is moved on from Housing.

Chief of Staff: Sir Ed Lister

CCHQ CEO: Peter Cruddas (of CMC Markets)

Next Week: the property industry and Jeremy Hunt. Only kidding – he has no chance of being elected as PM.

Before next week’s round local elections, let’s take a moment to note an aspect that is often lightly glossed over. Nearly a quarter of all councils having elections on 2 May (five new merged councils, nine unitaries and 42 districts) will be using a new set of ward boundaries.

Boundary changes actually have a lot to do with development issues. The main reason boundaries have to be reviewed is because some wards have grown, and that’s largely down to development: in 1998, Millwall ward in Tower Hamlets, drawn up in the 1970s before Docklands redevelopment began, had grown to have twice as many voters than almost all other wards – and more was on the way.

Ward boundaries have an importance wider than simply electoral. They are often the base for council sevices and others including policing teams, and are used for collection of local statistics and deprivation levels. That can affect planning considerations: anything which involves an assessment of the ‘local area’ could legitimately use the ward of a development site as a proxy for the locality. Electoral issues also come into play: if planning committee members think their decision will affect opinion and electoral balance in a marginal ward, they will pay far more attention than if it is a safe ward (especially one safe for the opposition).

Boundary reviews can have striking electoral effects, sometimes bringing sudden changes in party control. When South Cambridgeshire went from a safe Conservative council to having a large Liberal Democrat majority in 2018, it was partly down to boundary changes. There are also instances where a full review results in very minor changes that do not change the electoral pattern (as was the case in Cambridge and Watford in 2018).

A temporarily favourable arrangement of boundaries can backfire in the long run. Brent’s current wards were based on Conservative proposals which spread their strength and maximised their chances; things were difficult for Labour but its vote has increased so much since 2010 that it won all but one ward last year. In Bexley, wards used between 2002 and 2014 were based on Labour proposals which helped it win an unexpected majority in 2002 but left it with only two truly safe wards to rely on.

Unlike most states in the US, boundaries in Britain are drawn up by supposedly impartial bodies – in this case the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE). But the local political parties do all they can to get favourable arrangements, including trying to get community groups to back their submissions. The LGBCE has tended to prize proposals that produce electoral equality over unequal schemes that preserve community ties.

A complicating factor is that the boundaries have to be drawn up based on the forecast electorate in five years’ time, forecasts which are based on the council’s expectation of development. There is a lot of scope for dispute over the forecasts. Councils also usually draw up their proposals for boundary changes; with the benefit of professional officers, the LGBCE usually uses them as the basis for its draft recommendations. Of course, it is just a coincidence that the electoral impact of the council’s proposals is almost always in favour of the party with a majority on the council.

Bound up with ward boundary reviews are considerations of the total council size. Although the UK has one of the smallest ratio of elected officials to population, the long-term trend is to cut councillor numbers still further. Some councils have gone on a drastic slimming drive: Bexley went from 63 to 45 last year, and the new Richmondshire district will from next week have only 24 councillors, the smallest in England.

Which councils have electorally significant ward boundary changes this time? There are several historic Liberal Democrat/Conservative grudge matches in the South West worth looking at, including Bath and North East Somerset, South Gloucestershire and Torbay. Knife-edge Labour marginal councils with new wards include Cheshire West and Chester, Redcar and Cleveland, Carlisle and Crawley.