The Thorncliffe team

Thorncliffe has been nominated for Planning Campaign of the Year, for its work overturning a recommendation for refusal in Barnet earlier this year.

Back in February 2017, Kisharon (a school for special educational needs and disabilities in Barnet) was dismayed to discover that their plans to give an extra 72 school places to children in need was facing refusal by Barnet Council officers. Despite the new school site being the last option for Kisharon’s expansion, officers thought that the needs of the children should not be viewed as a very special circumstance and should be outweighed by the harm proposed to the Grade 2 listed building.

Our work:
1. We helped the client recognise that it was politicians, not council officers, who made the decision on this application; and our lobbying and intelligence efforts concentrated on giving councillors the confidence to overturn their officers’ strong recommendation to refuse. We reminded them that, if they failed to take this opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to the school, they would be blamed by parents. Given it was a relatively small application, they would also not be able to fall back on a decision by a higher authority such as the GLA or DCLG.

2. We rehearsed champions to speak at the committee. We organised two different champions – one, a parent, who was able to speak about the emotional and community benefits of the scheme; and the other, a Kisharon director, who we focussed on speaking to committee about planning reasons.

3. We coordinated, with Kisharon, a strong showing of support from local parents and children who were current, former, and future Kisharon pupils. We corralled this group, ensured they respected the process of committee, and filled the public gallery with supporters who sat in Kisharon t-shirts with supportive posters.

4. We drew the attention of councillors to the letters of support from local people, the local MP, the local GLA, the Chief Rabbi, Sir Robert Winston, and the adjacent neighbour to the site.

5. Our intelligence work ensured that we knew which members were sitting on committee on the night, what they were likely to think, and how best to encourage them to support the scheme against the strong officer recommendation.

The vote came down to the wire – two councillors voted with their officers and one further councillor abstained. However, the chair of the committee had been sufficiently encouraged by our champions and supporters in the public gallery that she encouraged a further three members (two of which were in an opposition party) to vote with her to ignore and overturn their officers recommendation.

The application was approved and Kisharon gained the vital planning consent they needed to be able to begin, in earnest, the process of moving the school from the now unsuitable Golders Green site to their new site of Montfort House.

Richard Patient, managing director of Thorncliffe, said

“It was really rewarding working for Kisharon, particularly as we were able to help them overturn what was clearly a difficult decision from the officers in Barnet.   The school caters for children with learning difficulties, and the school’s places are in high demand and by expanding, they can help more young people progress, achieve independence, enjoy life and to be included in the communities in which we live, through meaningful vocation, and a fulfilling social life.”

“We’re also delighted to be recognised by our peers for our work, and we’re really pleased that we’ve been nominated for this Planning Campaign of the Year award”.

No subject raises more dispute around housebuilding than viability assessments, which allow market housing to be built with few affordable housing units. This week housing charity Shelter has called on the government to “close the viability loophole”.

As most developers know, the subject is inevitably more difficult than housing campaigners would like. Planning obligations requiring affordable housing in market housing developments only started in the 1990s, a time when house prices were rising but the government did not want councils building their own homes.

From circular 1/97 onwards, the government told planning authorities not to require contributions that would make developments financially unviable; viability is not the ambiguity in the law suggested by the word “loophole”. In circular 05/05 the government suggested “use of independent third parties” might help work out when that would happen: the viability assessment was born before the recession.

It was only when the recession struck, with housing developers taking one of the biggest hits, that a large proportion of new developments started to be accompanied by viability assessments arguing that affordable housing policy requirements could no longer be met. The government also agreed to relax the definition of viability and allow renegotiation of previous signed agreements made unviable by market changes.

It should be of no surprise that councils, facing pressure over their own legal duty to find affordable homes, should fight against any possible reduction. In many cases the councillors are being pressed not to yield an inch by constituents and local party activists, who rarely have intimate knowledge of planning law or development finance.

What does it mean for developers? If the development itself is unwelcome then councillors are growing increasingly willing to simply vote them down rather than be criticised (and possibly facing deselection) for “selling out to developers”. More far-sighted or secure councils now routinely add review mechanisms so they can be assured of increased contributions from developments that proved more profitable at completion. When this happens developers should not be shy of making committees aware of the review.

Probably the most difficult aspect of viability is over confidentiality. When circular 05/05 made clear that “in cases where a dispute relates to the viability of a proposal the independent third party might have access to financial information provided by the developer on a strictly confidential basis”, its drafters may not have anticipated the way it would look like councillors and developers agreeing secret deals.

In an era of investigative bloggers, leaks and Freedom of Information legislation, perhaps no-one should have given high odds for viability assessments staying confidential. A three year campaign in Southwark over the Heygate estate regeneration ended in 2015 with most of its assessment (and the council’s scrutiny of it) being disclosed. Now councils are requiring applications to include a viability assessment which can be published.

Unless a sudden change lifts the housing market and makes development suddenly more viable, concern about viability assessment will not go away. Developers seeking to get planning permission on schedule and for viable developments must take account of the pressures on individual planning committee members. Talking to communities well in advance of submission always helps.

We’re recruiting.

Please check our jobs page here.

After 14 years in our office in Vauxhall, we’ve now moved to a new office … in Vauxhall.

We’re now in our new office just off the Albert Embankment, appropriate really given all the work we’ve done on the new buildings going up in the area.

Our new office is in the old showrooms of the Royal Doulton pottery, on Black Prince Road.  Next time you’re in our area, come and visit us.

Our address is now:

The Royal Doulton building
107 Southbank House / China Works
Black Prince Road, Albert Embankment
London, SE1 7SJ

Here’s a link to google maps

Our registered address has also changed to:

The Royal Doulton building
107 Southbank House / China Works
Black Prince Road, Albert Embankment
London, SE1 7SJ

Theresa May’s appointment of Alok Sharma as the new housing and planning minister is something of a surprise: the role normally goes to someone who has served as a councillor or has experience of local government, which Sharma lacks.

There is some evidence of his views on housing and planning issues. Sharma spoke in the second reading debate on the Localism Bill to welcome the removal of ‘top down’ housing targets: “The perception is that there is little upside for local communities in taking larger developments in their area. All such developments seem to offer is more traffic, more congestion, more pressure on local public services, the loss of valuable green spaces and amenities, and a detrimental impact on the local environment. Overall, the current planning system seems to lead, in many larger development proposals, to a gladiatorial contest, pitting local residents against the might and resources of developers.”

Sharma also publicly welcomed the National Planning Policy Framework when it was published in October 2011, but he has not made a habit of speaking on the subject since then.

In local work in his constituency he is happy to highlight his work against development of green spaces, and in cutting back the scale of the Bath Road Reservoir site in Reading. His election leaflets in 2017 included a five point plan, of which point four was “Champion sustainable housing development, whilst continuing to protect valuable green spaces like Pincent Hill”.

Born in Agra, India in 1967, Sharma  grew up in Earley and Whitley Wood in Reading. He attended the fee-paying Reading Blue Coat School and then studied physics and electronics at Salford University; however he chose to make his career with Coopers & Lybrand Deloitte as a chartered accountant. He worked in banking for Nikko Securities and then for 15 years with Enskilda Securities – working in London, Stockholm and Frankfurt.

When he returned to the UK in 2003 after four years in Germany, he became more interested in politics. After the 2005 election his wife suggested he should try for a seat in Parliament, and Sharma was selected for his home seat of Reading West in November 2006 – the first time he had stood for selection. After a long campaign, he won the seat in the 2010 general election, gaining it from Labour.

In Parliament he initially joined the Science and Technology Select Committee. Sharma was appointed as Vice-Chairman of the Conservative Party with responsibility for BME Communities by then party chairman Grant Shapps in 2012; he was also co-chairman of Conservative Friends of India. Later in the Parliament he served briefly on the Treasury Select Committee, concentrating on reform of the banking sector. After the 2015 election he became Parliamentary Private Secretary to Oliver Letwin as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and in 2016 was named as the Prime Minister’s Infrastructure Envoy to India

Sharma supported a remain vote in the 2016 referendum on membership of the European Union, and was subsequently an early backer of Theresa May in the Conservative leadership race. He was rewarded with a Ministerial promotion as a junior Foreign Office Minister with responsibility for Asia and the Pacific.

—————————–

Greg Hands has been made Minister for London in the post election reshuffle, while retaining his post as Minister of State in the Department of International Trade, with responsibility for Trade and Investment.  Hands read Modern History at Cambridge and is a speaker of German, French, Czech and Slovak; he is very interested in political developments in other European countries. Hands had a career in the City as a derivatives trader before going into politics.

Hands was first involved in local politics when elected to Hammersmith and Fulham Council in 1998; he won the seat previously held by the leader of the Liberal Democrat group on the Council. A year later he was elected Leader of the Conservative Group on the council, but in 2002 was selected as Parliamentary candidate for the marginal seat of Hammersmith and Fulham. He handed over the council group leadership to Stephen Greenhalgh who succeeded in winning control of the borough in 2006. Meanwhile Hands had gained his seat in the 2005 general election, and since 2010 has represented the safe seat of Chelsea and Fulham. He was a member of the Communities and Local Government Select Committee from June 2006 to May 2010.

He has had a varied ministerial career; from 2015-2016 he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury and prior to this he was in the Whips Office for four years. Hands was one of the more enthusiastic Conservative supporters of a ‘remain’ vote in the referendum; after initial caution he backed Theresa May in the leadership election. His association with David Cameron and his delay in rallying to Theresa May meant he was demoted from the Cabinet in her reshuffle and given a second rank role in Liam Fox’s department.

With the general election results announced tomorrow, we’d thought we’d look at the runners and riders for the next Ministers at the DCLG.

A Conservative Victory

Most pollsters and psephologists are still predicting a Conservative victory – around 60 to 80 seems to be a consistent view, although Iain Dale last night reiterated his belief, through ‘logic and research’, that they are on for a majority of 122.

Much less than 60, and Theresa May might have questions to answer from an embittered party – and have less leeway to make the changes she wants.  Above 60, and the PM becomes her own master.

Whatever happens, the PM looks set to make changes to her team.  Philip Hammond has been rumoured to be reshuffled off to green pastures, and his absence during the campaign has been noted.  Former DCLG Secretary Greg Clark is a contender for the job, as is the ever visible Amber Rudd and even possibly the ‘dependable’ Michael Fallon.

For May to move Boris out of Foreign Secretary is now unlikely – particularly after she used him as her warm up act to her campaign speech on Tuesday night.  Boris adds that ‘mudwhumping’ panache to her government, and also brings the Brexiteers along with him.

If Greg Clark becomes Chancellor, what happens to Business Secretary? Jeremy Hunt has been looking to get out of the NHS job for over a year now, although someone like Greg Hands would also be a good choice here.

Will she move Chris Grayling from his Transport job?  He’s definitely enjoying it and for her Tory Party leadership campaign manager to be demoted would be seen as poor show.

And what about Communities Secretary?  As a Muslim, Javid spoke out on Tuesday to urge other British Muslims to do more than simply condemn the terror attacks and that they had a ‘unique burden’ to tackle extremism.  But if May thinks someone else should take the Housing White Paper forward, who should it be?  Two Housing Ministers (one former and one current) have been tipped by Conservative Home – Brandon Lewis and Gavin Barwell would both be ideal candidates.  Their other tip is Ben Gummer, who is now in the now less visible position heading up the Cabinet Office.  But his promotion would keep the interest in the family – he is the son of the former highly regarded Environment Secretary John Gummer (now Lord Deben).  Gummer and Barwell have marginal seats (Ipswich and Croydon Central respectively), so they’d have to win their seats first.

A Labour win

And what if Labour won?  A Corbyn victory would vindicate the Labour naysayers in the parliamentary party who have failed to back him.  Corbyn would continue to rely on his staunch parliamentary backers like Diane Abbott, John McDonnell, Emily Thornberry, as well as colleagues like Tom Watson and Kier Starmer.

John Healey is the main candidate for Secretary of State for Housing – currently holding the shadow post and previously holding the junior ministerial positions (for housing, planning and local government) under Gordon Brown.

Whatever happens, Thorncliffe will be able assist you to understand the politics of planning over the coming weeks.  For more information, email Managing Director Richard Patient or call 020 7587 3047.