Category: London Plan 2016-21

  • m15 notes 23 January 2019

    m15 notes 23 January 2019

    Strategic and local regeneration Matter 15

    Warning: Just Space and UCL are trying to make available some sort of record of what happens in the EiP for the benefit of community members. Notes are being taken by postgraduate students and checked/edited so far as possible by more experienced staff and others. Neither Just Space nor UCL offers any guarantee of the accuracy of these notes. If you wish to depend on what was said at the EiP you should check with the speaker or with the audio recordings being made by the GLA. If you spot mistakes in these notes please help us to correct them by emailing m.edwards at ucl.ac.uk

    Questions raised by the Panel were: M15.Would the Plan be effective in ensuring that development contributes positively to regeneration where it is needed and the building of strong and inclusive communities in accordance with Policy GG1? In particular:
    a)  Would Figure 2.19 provide an effective and justified strategic framework for the identification of regeneration areas in local plans and neighbourhood plans?
    b)  Would Policy SD10 provide an effective and justified strategic framework for the preparation of (i) policies in local plans and neighbourhood plans and (ii) regeneration strategies and programmes?

    The afternoon session focused on Strategic and Local Regeneration. The Examiner opened up to the floor by asking groups to give some concrete examples of past experiences of regeneration (Hackney, Redbridge, Peckham). Eileen Conn from Peckham Vision suggested that from her experience, there is no account of what already exists on regeneration sites. She proposes that every area designated for regeneration should be the object of an audit highlighting already existing buildings, communities and uses and to clearly stress what the potential is to build on and preserve such assets. This proposition was echoed by other community organizations, which further stressed that what is meant by regeneration and what regeneration can bring to local communities would need to be defined almost on a site-by-site basis, understanding and building upon on what already exists. Architects from Footwork recognized that in their current form, consultation mechanisms are not adequate to assess such needs, partly because of the short timeframes over which these are carried out and the lack of effective collaboration with community organisations. More engagement is needed to create evidence and information that can effectively inform regeneration strategies based on local needs. Information on local demographics is far from sufficient to achieve this.

    As pointed out by London Forum, there have been examples of successful regeneration in the past but these have been based on an active involvement of community groups in the design and implementation of regeneration strategies: it has to be community-led.

    The London Assembly Planning Committee stressed the fact that many regeneration areas fall within OA boundaries and the relationship between planning frameworks used to deal with regeneration and OAs needs to be clarified, including considerations of the role of London Boroughs and community organizations. This was echoed by a number of community organizations. The Examiner recognized that this was an important message, highlighting that important principles and objectives for regeneration could be better addressed. The GLA recognised it would need to bring more clarity into the text, but also referred to other policies already existing in the NLP as places where some of the issues are already addressed. GLA representatives also reassessed the need for local plans to bring more clarity on these matters, specifically for private developers, as they stressed that “delivering market housing is not stopping affordable housing being built, often it is enabling it.” The Examiner concluded that there are clear issues around empowerment and collaboration and that the key objectives of regeneration including its impact on inequalities should be further discussed.

    Edited by Enora Robin from notes by Cecilia Colombo, Gabi Abadi, Sam Colchester, Alice Devenyns and Emma Woodward. We may expand this very short summary of what was a dense discussion.

    back to main EiP page

    On to the next blog post: The wider south east region and beyond (M16)

     

  • m14 notes 23 January 2019

    m14 notes 23 January 2019

    Matter 14: Opportunity Areas

    Warning: Just Space and UCL are trying to make available some sort of record of what happens in the EiP for the benefit of community members. Notes are being taken by postgraduate students and checked/edited so far as possible by more experienced staff and others. Neither Just Space nor UCL offers any guarantee of the accuracy of these notes. If you wish to depend on what was said at the EiP you should check with the speaker or with the audio recordings being made by the GLA. If you spot mistakes in these notes please help us to correct them by emailing m.edwards at ucl.ac.uk

    The questions posed by the Panel were:
    M14.Are the Opportunity Areas identified on the Key Diagram and Figures 2.4 to 2.12 likely to deliver the indicative number of additional homes and jobs assumed in the Plan in a way that is justified and consistent with national policy? In particular:
    a)  Are sites likely to be available in the Opportunity Areas with sufficient capacity to accommodate the expected scale of development?
    b)  Have the Opportunity Areas been chosen having due regard to flood risk in accordance with national policy?
    c)  To be effective in preventing unacceptable risk from pollution and land instability and ensuring that development only takes place on sites that are suitable for the use proposed, is it necessary for the Plan to set out a strategic approach to dealing with despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land in Opportunity Areas?
    d)  How would the development proposed be likely to affect the character and appearance of existing places within and around the Opportunity Areas including with regard to heritage assets and their settings?
    e)  Is the necessary transport and other physical, environmental and social infrastructure likely to be in place in each of the Opportunity Areas in a timely manner?
    f)  Would the development proposed in the Opportunity Areas support policyGG1 “building strong and inclusive communities” and Policy SD10 “strategic and local regeneration”?
    g)  Would Policy SD1 provide an effective strategic context for the preparation of local plans and neighbourhood plans?
    h)  Is the approach to development management set out in SD1 consistent with national policy and would it be effective particularly in terms of therole of “planning frameworks”?

    The OAs session was carried out over half a day and community organizations involved in the Examination, including Just Space, felt that more time should have been allocated to discuss such an important issue. With the number of OAs designated in the draft new London Plan (NLP) substantially increasing from previous years, various concerns were raised. The Examiner highlighted that the NLP did not clearly stress the status of housing and job targets: are these binding minimum targets the Boroughs will have to achieve? Are they only indications? The GLA was asked to clarify its position and to make it explicit in the text that these are indicative and should be met whenever possible, without it being a compulsory requirement, since there remains a lot of uncertainty in relation to transport projects (such as Crossrail 2, upon which many OAs are depending if they are to achieve their targets) and the ability to unlock land for investments on those sites. The GLA, however, made it clear that the housing targets for OAs included in the Strategic Housing Land Availability (SHLAA) were estimates of what could be done without Crossrail 2 and without the Bakerloo extension to Lewisham.

     

    A representative from the London Borough of Camden welcomed GLA’s changes to the figures as result of their discussions. However, the representative added that the figures for Euston should be changed to match the Euston Plan rather than the generic London Plan as the figures in the Euston Plan had been based on more detailed studies of the Euston area and are therefore more realistic.  A representative from the Canary Wharf Group added that the employment figures presented in the plan had been carried forward from the 2008 plan and in the last 10 years more than 48,000 jobs have been created; the plan should be altered to reflect this (we need to check this). The representative further argues that the evidence base to back up the indicative figures is not justified. She suggested that there is now a different appetite for jobs, houses and workplaces. The Inspector summarised by saying that the evidence base for the figures needed to be updated.

     

    The process through which OAs are designated was criticised as opaque, lacking in evidence-base and criteria; past experiences in King’s Cross and current development in Euston, Old Oak Common and the Isle of Dogs have demonstrated the GLA’s and Boroughs’ failure adequately to engage local communities in this process. In particular, it was highlighted that the high housing targets set out in many OAs puts immense pressure on the need to extract value to pay for transport investments (these are necessary to achieve densification targets), giving developers more room to build upwards and to cut down the amount of social housing. In addition, although OA policy has been used in various iterations of the London Plan since 2004, OAs have never been subject to an extensive and independent evaluation.

     

    Just Space referred to its long-standing view that there should be a moratorium on further designations until there had been an independent review of the experience with OAs to date. The GLA officers responded that they do intend to undertake a full review of OA experience in the coming year.

     

    The London Forum added that in the past OAs have been designated without any recognition of the impact that they will have on the surrounding areas.  Giving the example of White City the representative stated that the OA team and GLA and the local borough colluded to produce development that exceeded the density matrix. Further stressing that this is not just about the impact on heritage but to the intangible value that heritage has to communities. Jennifer Robinson for Just Space agreed that new places are encouraged by the NLP to ‘set their own character’ but that this should not override existing character. Caroline Shah (Just Space) from Kingston, agreed saying the process for establishing OAs is unsound and doesn’t take into account the views of communities or borough character studies. Giving the example of Kingston, a nascent OA, Shah argued that the process leading to designation happened behind closed doors and failed to consider impacts on character, heritage, visual integration with surrounding neighbourhoods, ecology or biodiversity.

     

    The London Assembly Planning Committee consider that London’s unique selling point is the distinctiveness of its neighbourhoods but that some of the OAs have been designed and built as if they could be anywhere. Suggesting that SD1 B4 be amended with wording which requires places to be attractive and sustainable while ensuring the historic fabric, assets and character of neighbourhoods are taken care of.

     

    The GLA team said the NLP laid out a different approach to OAs going forward, that a new team was in charge and that the creation of Opportunity Area Planning Frameworks (OAPFs) would be made more inclusive and subject to revisions every five years as OAs get developed. Concerns were raised on the status of OAPFs – where they sit in relation to the NPPF, the NLP, local development plans and Supplementary Planning Guidance remains unclear. Until now the GLA has treated these as Supplementary Planning Guidance, thus limiting the potential for public scrutiny and public engagement on the development of OAPF. However, given their importance in setting strategic directions for development projects in OAs, various stakeholders indicated that their status should be revised and clarified. In particular JS, the Forum and others argued that plans for all OAs must go through a full development plan process including Examination in Public. Interestingly the Housebuilders (HBF) representative agreed, stressing that developers also need certainty about the lawfulness and dependability of plans.

     

    Commenting on the complaints of democratic deficit of OAPFs, the GLA said that they acquired legitimacy by having been through the London Plan EiP process, and in the case of long-established ones, been through it a number of times.

     

    A number of groups complained that the major London-wide issues raised by Opportunity Areas, combined with the – in effect – designation of a whole new batch required more than half a day of examination and sought more time.

    Edited by Enora Robin from notes by Cecilia Colombo, Gabi Abadi, Sam Colchester, Alice Devenyns and Emma Woodward

    back to main EiP page

    On to the next blog post: Regeneration, Matter 15

  • m10-13 notes 22 January 2019

    m10-13 notes 22 January 2019

    M10-13 Overall Spatial Development Strategy

    Warning: Just Space and UCL are trying to make available some sort of record of what happens in the EiP for the benefit of community members. Notes are being taken by postgraduate students and checked/edited so far as possible by more experienced staff and others. Neither Just Space nor UCL offers any guarantee of the accuracy of these notes. If you wish to depend on what was said at the EiP you should check with the speaker or with the audio recordings being made by the GLA. If you spot mistakes in these notes please help us to correct them by emailing m.edwards at ucl.ac.uk

    The Panel questions were: M10 Should the vast majority of London’s development needs be met within London?
    a)  Is the approach of seeking to accommodate the vast majority of identified development requirements between 2019 and 2041 within London justified and would so doing contribute to the objective of achieving sustainable development?
    b)  Alternatively, would accommodating more of London’s development needs in the wider South East and beyond better contribute to the objective of achieving sustainable development?
    c)  If so, is there a realistic prospect that such an approach in London and the wider South East could be delivered in the context of national policy and legislation?

    M11. Is the strategic approach to accommodating development needs within London justified and consistent with national policy? In particular:
    a)  Is the focus on the Central Activities Zone, Town Centres, Opportunity Areas and through the intensification of existing built-up areas in inner and outer London whilst protecting the Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land justified and would it be effective in meeting identified needs and achieving sustainable development?
    b)  Alternatively, should some of London’s development needs be met through reviewing Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land in London?

    M12. Is the broad spatial distribution of housing and employment development proposed in the Plan, including between inner and outer London10, justified and would it contribute to the objective of achieving sustainable development particularly in terms of minimising the need to travel and maximising the use of sustainable transport modes; building a strong, competitive economy; creating healthy, inclusive communities; and respecting the character and appearance of different parts of London?

    M13. Would the Plan be effective in ensuring that adequate physical, environmental and social infrastructure is in place in a timely manner to support the amount and type of development proposed? In particular:
    a)  Is the development proposed in the Plan dependent on the provision of the infrastructure identified in the London Infrastructure Plan 2050 [NLP/EC/020]?
    b)  If so, is the strategy justified and would it be effective, bearing in mind that the delivery of some of the infrastructure projects is not certain and that there is an identified infrastructure funding gap of at least £3.1billion per year?
    c)  What, if any, strategic infrastructure other than that identified in the London Infrastructure Plan 2050 is likely to be needed to support the development proposed in the Plan?

    On Tuesday 22nd January, the Examination in Public focused on the overall Spatial Development Strategy laid out in the New London Plan (NLP). The session ran over a full day and was the occasion to question the relevance (and likelihood) of meeting London’s housing, infrastructure and jobs needs within the GLA boundaries, following the ‘compact city’ approach laid out in the NLP. Overall, the discussions set out the scene for further thematic examination of the NLP’s approach to spatial development by highlighting that the housing targets it introduces would be extremely difficult to achieve, for multiple reasons.

    Firstly, there is evidence of a consistent failure in meeting housing targets set out in past London plans. Various participants including Outer Boroughs, local authorities from the East of England and South East (together called Wider South East), house building organizations and community groups expressed concerns on the feasibility and consequences (in terms of density, displacement, etc.) of the objectives set out in the NLP (66,000 homes a year). LSE London and Just Space both highlighted that London’s footprint extends beyond its administrative boundaries and this has implications for housing markets beyond the GLA border. Similarly, major infrastructure projects – and national policies – do create connexions between London and its broader functional region. As a result, growth projections and housing strategies need to account for these effects and to engage with local authorities in the Wider South East in order to realistically assess what the appropriate (and realistic) response to housing needs and population growth might be. The point was made that more engagement from the Mayor (beyond the ‘willing partners’ approach) was needed to ensure mutually beneficial strategies could be laid out in collaboration with other local authorities. The GLA team responded this was something they were pursuing and that it would take time to engage in collaboration with partners outside the GLA.

    Secondly, it was noted that the NLP differs from previous plans in that Outer London Boroughs are asked to contribute to the provision of housing and jobs in a greater proportion than Inner London Boroughs. A representative from the London Borough of Enfield welcomed this ambition but doubted it could be achieved without giving greater autonomy and flexibility to Boroughs themselves so that they can achieve their targets. A representative from the London Borough of Croydon stressed that housing and job targets should be supported by an assessment of their impact on local communities. A lot of Outer Boroughs’ housing density targets will be conditioned by the delivery of major infrastructure schemes, such as Crossrail 2, which are themselves highly uncertain. Unlocking land for development and incentivising densification might be necessary to address housing needs, but the NLP should incorporate further consideration of the issues it will raise in relation to the provision of key services (schools, health) and transport infrastructures within the GLA boundaries and beyond.
    Thirdly,  the mechanisms laid out in the NLP to accelerate housing delivery in Town Centres, Opportunity Areas and Small Sites were deemed problematic for various reasons including the lack of clarity on their impact on employment & services, local character (for Town Centres), the type of incentives and behavioural changes that would be needed to bring these forward (in the case of small sites), their ability to deliver affordable housing for all Londoners and to protect existing communities (in the case of Opportunity Areas).
    Overall, there was a consensus that the targets set out in the NLP were likely to be unrealistic and that their delivery – particularly as they focus on unlocking opportunities for private-led developments – would raise sustainability challenges, specifically in relation to the protection of local communities – low and middle income –, the provision of affordable housing and in relation to the protection of local character and heritage.
    Just Space was almost alone in challenging the spatial structure of London as it was emerging and foreseen in the draft Plan, challenging the GLA’s asssertion that the premium rents paid by firms to locate in the Central Activities Zone (CAZ) was adequate evidence to support the Plan’s continuing priority for central employment growth. JS agreed that the benefits of agglomeration do indeed accrue to businesses and to the owners of bulldings in which they operate, but that the costs of agglomeration were great too, and are borne by the population (air quality, housing costs, travel costs) or mitigated by massive state invetments in radial transport. This was partly why Just Space has called for less emphasis on CAZ growth, more on sustaining existing and growing employment in the rest of London. The spatial strategy of Just Space, of which this is an element, should have been evaluated as part of the Strategic Environmental Assessment (which we had argued under Matter 1 SEA). This community-generated spatial strategy is based in maximising local accessibility between homes and jobs, sustaining and building upon non-central local economies, focusing transport investment on orbital and bus routes as well as walking and cycling and thus reducing the need to travel.

    Edited by Enora Robin from notes by Cecilia Colombo, Gabi Abadi, Sam Colchester, Alice Devenyns and Emma Woodward

    Later Paul Burnham from Tottenham who spoke from the Just Space seat, presenting the Just Space case for part of the day, wrote
    “The existing London Plan 2016 (Policy 3.3) advocates estate demolition both to build additional homes, and because the estates are seen as bad in themselves: supposedly mono-tenure places which entrench social exclusion, etc.  All of this is all changing in the Draft New Plan, which lists in Policy H1, six sources of new housing supply, which do NOT include the redevelopment of council estates.  Of course the GLA is still facing both ways.  But it is no longer encouraging estate demolitions as hard as before.”

    back to main EiP page

    On to next blog post: Opportunity Areas M14

     

  • M7&8 notes 18 January 2019

    M7&8 notes 18 January 2019

    Matters 7 and 8: Format, Scope and Content of the Plan; conformity with national policy.

    Warning: Just Space and UCL are trying to make available some sort of record of what happens in the EiP for the benefit of community members. Notes are being taken by students and checked/edited so far as possible by more experienced staff and others. Neither Just Space nor UCL offers any guarantee of the accuracy of these notes. If you wish to depend on what was said at the EiP you should check with the speaker or with the audio recordings being made by the GLA. If you spot mistakes in these notes please help us to correct them by emailing m.edwards at ucl.ac.uk       

    Friday January 18 2019

    Note: Comments have been paraphrased. Some comments have been removed based on repetition or lack of clarity.

    M7. Does the Plan set out a spatial development strategy in accordance with relevant legislation and national policy? In particular:

    a) Does the Plan deal only with matters which are of strategic importance to Greater London?

    MHCLG:   London Plan does not provide a definition of ‘strategic’.

    Home Builders Federation:  There is a policy vacuum regarding what is appropriate for the London Plan to address. It should focus on strategic matters.

    Retirement Housing Consortium:

    • What is strategic is a matter for the Mayor to decide.
    • London Plan is regional and does not cut across borough plans.

    London Forum:

    • Current London Plan is more prescriptive than the New London Plan.
    • London Plan has been a great help: been up-to-date. It is an essential decision-making tool. London Plan is part one of spatial development plan. It is the basis of many Local Plans.

    Just Space:

    • On sustainable development: no one size fits all. There must be variations.

    London Neighbourhood Planners:

    • What makes a policy strategic?
    • Many practical implications for neighbourhood planners.

    London Forum:

    • Mayor is creating a framework through London Plan.

    Sustainable Development Commission:

    • NPPF and definition of sustainable development. Macro carbon budget.

    Greater London Authority:

    • What is of strategic importance? Variation in interpretation over time.

    Just Space:

    • Gap between policy and practice.
    • London Plan does not deal with matters of strategic importance.
    • Not consistent with national policy.

    Aitch Group:

    • What constitutes a strategic matter?
    • London Plan goes into too much detail.

    London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham:

    • Contaminated land and sustainable design not in the New London Plan.

    London Forum:

    • Priorities shift over time.

    Neighbourhood Planners London:

    • Role of strategic spaces.

    MHCLG:

    • What should be of strategic importance?

    London Borough of Bexley:

    • There is a lack of a Plan B. What if prescriptive policies don’t work?

    Greater London Authority:

    • Aim not to reject strategies and not too much cross-referencing.
    • Sustainable design and construction and contaminated land are covered in other legislation and Opportunity Areas
    • No one size fits all in London Plan.
    • Policies continually reviewed and Greater London Authority consults with boroughs about local policy and national policy.

    [Break]

    b) Would the policies in the Plan provide an effective strategic framework for the preparation of local plans and neighbourhood plans in London?

    Greater London Authority:

    • Some policies in which London Plan has a wider remit.

    London Forum:

    • Supports London Plan.

    London Assembly Planning Committee:

    • Support plan teams and representatives.
    • London Plan deals with matters of strategic importance.
    • Unless plan has a clearer objective and strategic direction then it won’t have a sufficient framework.

    London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham:

    • If sustainable design and construction and contaminated land were in the plan then it would have a better strategic vision. If no policies then no supplementary planning guidance.

    London Borough of Bexley:

    • Plan does not provide a strategic framework.
    • How do you reflect the aspirations of local people?

    Aitch Group:

    • Focus on time frame and matters in terms of strategic direction.

    Home Builders Federation:

    • London Plan might become ineffective as it contains too many policies.
    • Requires a lot of contextual work by London boroughs.

    London Forum:

    • Concern about local resources and skills.
    • There should be area-based frameworks.

    London First:

    • Best practice design guidance should be provided.

    Neighbourhood Planners London:

    • Neighbourhood forums accustomed to working with Local Plans.

    MHCLG:

    • A consistent set of terms for boroughs would be helpful.
    • There should be aspects for broad strategic plans.
    • Are the good growth sections policies or objectives?

    Greater London Authority:

    • London Plan saves boroughs some work to a degree.
    • Detail should be at local level.
    • New London Plan is not that bloated.
    • London review panel can review design.

    (c) Does the Plan address detailed issues that would be more appropriately addressed in local plans and neighbourhood plans?

    Aitch Group:

    • Detail is more appropriate in Local Plans.

    Retirement Housing Consortium:

    • Not necessary to have strategic objective only provided in London Plan.
    • Boroughs may implement differently.

    London Forum:

    • Fast approval rather than long debates can help build more affordable homes.

    London Neighbourhood Planners:

    • Current version of London Plan is not great at exploring how strategic priorities can be balanced.

    [Unknown]:

    • Plans should be simplified and more strategic to be more effective.

    London Borough of Bexley:

    • Not always possible to provide level of detail.

    Home Builders Federation:

    • Merit of London Plan is it is a way to do heavy lifting.
    • Issue with idea that increasing detail will make it more deliverable.

    Greater London Authority:

    • Challenge in terms of level of growth.
    • Detailed space standards and no comments about level of prescription.
    • SPG: feedback on over-egging.

    [Break]

    d) Is the approach to planning in London described in paragraphs 0.0.21 and 0.0.22, particularly with regard to the relationship between the spatial development strategy and local plans, neighbourhood plans and the Borough’s development management responsibilities, justified and consistent with national policy and legislation?

    MHCLG:

    • Local Plan coverage can be limited in terms of how up-to-date and comprehensive it is.
    • London Plan has been through its iterations in a timely manner.

    London Forum:

    • Requirement for detail at Local Plan level.

    Home Builders Federation:

    • Requirement of Local Plans to reflect NPPF.

    Aitch Group:

    • SPG is a good place.
    • What if policies are examples of how an objective can be achieved?

    London Neighbourhood Planners:

    • ‘Neighbourhood plan’ and ‘neighbourhood forum’ should be included as part of glossary.

    Just Space:

    • There should be more emphasis on ‘neighbourhood’ in London Plan.

    Greater London Authority:

    • Neighbourhood plans and forums will be in the New London Plan.

    [Unknown]:

    • How is plan in accordance with policies and role in planning applications?
    • Local authorities could create policies to achieve aims of London Plan.
    • Can we remove over-prescriptive aspects of the strategic plan?

    Greater London Authority:

    • Policy is established by local authority.

    Home Builders Federation:

    • What is role of national policy?

    M8. Given the legal requirement for the Mayor to have regard to the need to ensure that the Plan is consistent with national policies, is it justified for certain policies to deviate from national policy and guidance?

    Greater London Authority:

    • Aspects are not consistent with national policies and aspects are not consistent with an element of national policy.

    Home Builders Federation:

    • Some policies more effective at borough-level.

    MHCLG:

    • Is there evidence of justifications for policies not being consistent with national policies?

    London Forum:

    • London Plan and NPPF.

    Home Builders Federation:

    • Impact of London Plan on other parts of the country.

    Greater London Authority:

    • London Plan can be inconsistent with national policy.

    London Assembly Planning Committee:

    • More resources required.

    END

    Back to EiP narrative page

    On to next blog post: Spatial development strategy (M10-13)

  • M9 notes 16 January

    M9 notes 16 January

    London Plan EiP Week 1  16 January 219 M9

    Warning: Just Space and UCL are trying to make available some sort of record of what happens in the EiP for the benefit of community members. Notes are being taken by students and checked/edited so far as possible by more experienced staff and others. Neither Just Space nor UCL offers any guarantee of the accuracy of these notes. If you wish to depend on what was said at the EiP you should check with the speaker or with the audio recordings being made by the GLA. If you spot mistakes in these notes please help us to correct them by emailing m.edwards at ucl.ac.uk

    M9 Good Growth

    M9. (a) Are Good Growth policies GG1 to GG6 consistent with national policy and/or justified, and would they help ensure that the Plan provides an effective strategic framework to achieve sustainable development? [Bold: Questions posed by the Panel in advance.]

    GLA:A few more amendments we intend to make.

    –  Correct an omission of GG1 (FA), race should have been on the list.

    –  GG5, to recognize importance of environmental issues shaping the economy – reconsider benefits of circular low carbon economy

    –  GG1 – a new clause for engagement

    Just Space: a number of these changes are very welcome. However, not having the precise wording in front of us makes it difficult to comment. Not clear whether amendments are to policy or text. Will you be able to tell us when the amendments will be published online?

    London Forum: GG2 jumps immediately to a design led approach without assessing accessibility. Should start with priorities, then accessibility, and then the design led approach. No logic to current sequence. 
[14:24]

    Footwork Architects: Such a re-ordering is needed. There is a lack of priority.

    London Friends of Greenspace: GG2D is currently “protect and enhance open spaces” it should be protect, enhance and expand. Addressing deficiencies is important.

    Just Space: See omissions in good growth principles:

    –  GG1, issue around governance – relating to support and resourcing of community networks

    –  GG2, we would like to see food growing and access to healthy food added to green infrastructure

    –  GG3, healthy cities needs improvement

    –  GG4, we would like to see reference to ensuring access at all income levels and specialist needs and should mention participation of London communities in housing (re Grenfell)

    –  GG5, no reference to supporting local, diverse economies

    –  GG6, issue around low-income households and fuel policy needs adding .

     

    Peckham vision: We need to have a consistent policy in London in the way that the community sector is involved in planning.

    Footwork:Omission in GG4 – London remains an inclusive place. Our general point is whether it translates into policies. One aspect of this is preventing displacement of existing communities (no mention of this).

    London Tenants Federation: Housing that meets the needs of low-income communities should be included in GG1 and GG4 
[14:46]

    Aitch Group: In the intro there is a reference to the housing crisis, but later on, the objective to ‘ensure that more homes are delivered’ is weak.

    Just Space: It would be helpful if GG amendments are published so that we will be informed for future hearings.

    GLA:They will be published as early as possible for future sessions.

    London Forum: In previous plans the suggested changes were mentioned in the morning.

    Aitch Group: If GGs are policies would expect them to be more specific in terms of linking to other parts of the plan.

    London First: Defining policies as objectives is needed. Difficult as development management policies.

    SD Commission: Rather than aspirations we want more specific language that integrates metrics and targets.

    Assembly Planning Committee: effective policy would include a clear vision with a set of objectives. The GG policies have neither of these. GGs should be redefined as strategic objectives. Insufficient weight is given to social inclusivity and environmental improvement, which are the drivers to economic prosperity, not fetters of it.

    Just Space: GGs are objectives. It’s not clear in chapter 1 what the vision is and what the objectives are. In foreword the mayor mentions: rebalancing development, a socially integrated and sustainable city where people have more of a say (we like these aims). But see that this is not followed through.

    Neighbourhood Planners London: GGs seem to be objectives, perception across London that neighbourhood planning has not had an impact since 2012. We think they (NPs) are good at identifying small housing sites and infill sites. Think that the GLA has a bit of a blind spot when it comes to neighbourhood plans.

    Just Space: ‘A city that works for all Londoners’ is mentioned by the Mayor but not defined. Would like to see this defined. There is an extremely important issue around migrants (they do not feel that they have equal rights). Would be good to have definition that includes all migrants in for ‘all Londoners’ definition.

    The glossary now provides a different definition of Sustainable Development from NPPF 2012’s clear definition. The NPPF definition provides 5 guiding principles. Changes shouldn’t throw out good governance; planning within environmental limits; and using sound science responsibly. Would like to see the 5 principles restored.

    Footwork:The social role is not sufficiently applied. Use the NPPF definition for being proactive about SD.

    Just Space: We support the good growth approach – it’s an excellent change. What I said earlier was around the usability of the plan.

    (b) Are the policies in chapters 2 to 12 of the Plan appropriately informed by and consistent with Good Growth policies GG1 to GG6?

    [16:08] London First: GG1-6 cover a huge range of objectives but there is no prioritisation. Housing provision has no reference.

    London Tenants Federation: Opportunity Areas are an unwelcome thread in the London Plan. Not brownfield sites often, often where people work. In contradiction with many of the good principles that we have been elaborating on. Exclusive housing developments for high end that do not meet the need of the people living there. Push out businesses that meet the needs of the people that live there, new jobs don’t meet local needs. Want the mayor to make a close examination of Opportunity Areas to see how they have impacted the people in the areas already living there.

    Footwork: GG policies don’t satisfactorily translate through to the chapters.

    Assembly Planning Committee: Making the link between GG and the chapters has bedevilled the plan. We are hoping that the GG policies will be reframed as strategic objectives. We feel that there are inconsistencies (H12) which pushes one-bedroom studios and lacks provision for family housing. G8 for tall buildings does not refer to the energy efficiency of constructing and maintaining tall buildings.

    London Forum: If there were cross-references from the GG to the rest of the plan then that would be a checklist to see if you have policy coverage.

    Peckham Vision: In the GG section local knowledge and experience in neighbourhoods is omitted. This has an impact all the way through.

    Just Space: Lack of expression of strategic importance of food in GG policies. Earlier I proposed a GG7 just to focus on food. Mention of it is focused on problem of childhood obesity. Absence of in- depth appreciation of food security.

    London Forum: Tendency among some of us to make this a managerial document rather than an aspirational document.

    Just Space: Would like to see monitoring: is London a fair and inclusive city; equalities and development of civil society (depth and diversity of engagement); the levels of trust in authorities that people feel. What determines homes and housing in the London Plan?

    Footwork:Aims are socially very ambitious but then don’t quite translate into the policy. If there is no policy to monitor and scrutinise them, then you devalue their significance.

    London Forum: Has not been a cross check between key principles and monitoring.

    Peckham Vision: Focus on development has been about clearing out and replacing. We have proved in Peckham that this does not need to be the case.

    Just Space: Conflicts around monitoring surround the lack of clarity by what ‘Londoners’ means.

    Notes made by Lyuboslav Petrov and Sam Colchester

    Back to the EiP narrative page

    On to the next blog post: scope of the plan and consistency with national policy M7&8

     

     

  • M6 notes 16 January

    M6 notes 16 January

    London Plan EiP day 2, 16 January 2019

    Consultations

    Warning: Just Space and UCL are trying to make available some sort of record of what happens in the EiP for the benefit of community members. Notes are being taken by students and checked/edited so far as possible by more experienced staff and others. Neither Just Space nor UCL offers any guarantee of the accuracy of these notes. If you wish to depend on what was said at the EiP you should check with the speaker or with the audio recordings being made by the GLA. If you spot mistakes in these notes please help us to correct them by emailing m.edwards at ucl.ac.uk

    M6) Was the consultation carried out during the preparation of the Plan in accordance with relevant legislation, and did it involve early and meaningful engagement and collaboration with the community, local authorities, organisations and businesses? [Question posed by the Panel before the hearing]

    The Mayor argues they did carry engagement out in accordance with relevant legislation. The draft London plan was sent to the Secretary of State, all London Boroughs, all adjoining districts, London Assembly and functional bodies, a copy was available at City Hall and all London Boroughs were asked to display a copy. They also have a list of all engagements that took place.

    The panel ask the Mayor if a number of categories of people were engaged with, outlined in section three (of ?). Section three gives a description of the people you need to make sure you have spoken to. Many participants argue it is not not clear how the Mayor has differentiated between these groups particularly ethnic, racial, religious and national groups.

    The Mayor reminds the panel of a range of early engagements that took place especially the City for all Londonersconsultation in which over 76 community equality groups attended workshops.

    Robin Brown from Just Space suggests if you are to explore legal and procedural matters of consultation in the formation of the London plan. You should go beyond the GLA acts into the wider context. He cites the Aarhus convention 1998 – ratified by government in 2005 – which helps us define consultation and engagement. He reminds the panel out of 188 meetings in annex a, 7 meetings were held with campaign groups, most of those were actually with Just Space; 7 revolved around A City for all Londoners; 14 out of 188 meetings is not a significant proportions of engagements. It doesn’t seem to be deliberately targeted to meet requirements and access minority groups or those who doesn’t usually actively engage in public consultations.

    London Tenants Federation question meaningful engagement with the community and how deep into the community the consultation went.

    Many participants were in agreement that the Mayor should develop a Statement of Community Involvement and ground rules for delivering effective community involvement. This should be drawn into the plan as the basis for consultation.

    London Forum argued that in their experience the process was as good as you could have expected. They highlighted that the London Plan is a one shot plan which means you can’t change anything after you have produced a draft plan thus little will be changed from this examination as major changes would have to go back into consultation again. (Contrast with local plan process.)

    It was again highlighted that there was no space in the programme for negotiation or responses.

    Robin Brown from Just Space argued that out of 97 events 4 were sub-regional meetings open to the public, 2 were public launches, and 7 open to the public at city hall. 13/97 were open to public and highlights that Mayor and GLA does not have concerted and productive process of consultation.

    There are structural failures with consultations, particularly with marginalised groups.

    The Mayor highlights the workshops and community teams engaged with as many groups as possible very early on in the process. They argued they gave sufficient time for response to consultations.

    The Panel asked the GLA to produce a version of the list of consultation events, sequenced according to the 9 protected characteristics of those present.

    Notes made by Lyuboslav Petrov and Sophie Hardcastle

    [added 28 January from Natasha Sivanandan]

    Natasha Sivanandan, (Just Space, StopHDV campaign), set out how the law defines what constitutes effective and meaningful public consultation from the Supreme Court case: R (on the application of Moseley) v London Borough of Haringey.  She went on to explain how none of these elements of effective or meaningful consultation had been carried out with specific regard to those who were discriminated against and marginalised in London, nor those who are most poor, in breach of the Mayor’s Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) under the Equality Act 2010.   She went on to say that the PSED affected all areas of the new draft London Plan, not just one topic.  She explained what this meant and also how it should be carried out.
    She criticised the lack of consultation with Black and Ethnic Minority (BME) communities who as the Mayor notes are 40% of London’s population.  She pointed out that, when referring to the “race and ethnic origins” provisions of the Equality Act, that people forget that this refers also to “ethnic and national origins” and therefore includes those from Europe.  The GLA notes that there are 1 million EU citizens in London but did not address how they consulted this large group about the draft London Plan.
    Natasha Sivanandan pointed out that the failure to put the London Plan documents on which the public were consulted, in an accessible language known as “Plain English”, (specifically as defined by the Plain English Campaign), meant that disabled people, people whose first language was not English and those with poor literacy skills were disproportionately impacted by these failures.
    Finally she said that holding lots of meetings did not indicate if consultation was meaningful.  Meaningingful consultation must include consultation not just on the preferred option but also upon arguable yet discarded alternative options.

    Back to the EiP narrative page 

    On to the next blog post: Good Growth (in effect the vision statement for the plan) M9

     

  • M5 notes 16 January

    M5 notes 16 January

    Did the Mayor engage…?

    Draft London Plan Examination in Public (EiP) 16 January 2019

    Day Two:

    Warning:Just Space and UCL are trying to make available some sort of record of what happens in the EiP for the benefit of community members. Notes are being taken by students and checked/edited so far as possible by more experienced staff and others. Neither Just Space nor UCL offers any guarantee of the accuracy of these notes. If you wish to depend on what was said at the EiP you should check with the speaker or with the audio recordings being made by the GLA. If you spot mistakes in these notes please help us to correct them by emailing m.edwards at ucl.ac.uk

     

    M5. Irrespective of matter M4, did the Mayor engage constructively, actively and on an on- going basis during the preparation of the Plan:
    a) with all relevant local authorities and other prescribed bodies in London? (Bold type is the questions posed by the panel in advance.)

    Mostly the panel and participants were in agreement that engagement did take place, thus, if the duty did apply to the Mayor – then they did conform. However, there were disputes about whether this engagement was constructive, active, meaningful and productive.

    Participant Mr Edwards (Hillingdon Council) argued that the Mayor did not comply and highlighted the Mayor’s legal obligation for engagement in the GLA act 1999 section 335, 339 and 348 (public participation, publicity, consultation and outputs). He emphasised that the Mayor did engage on the basis of SHLAA methodology that rolled forward. The Mayor expressed a commitment, following consultation on the methodology, that the matters would be developed and shared with Boroughs.That is what he should have done and he did not do it. The Mayor agrees that this further consultation did not take place, but continuous engagement had done so. The Mayor recognised his duty, and failed to do this without any legitimate reasons, claims Hillingdon.

    The panel ask the Mayor what statutory requirements apply to the Mayor in consultation. The Mayor responded with Section 32 which sets out carrying out all duties outlined in Section 30 in determining what consultation is appropriate. This emphasises that engagement must include boroughs but it is not a duty to consult.

    b) all relevant local authorities and prescribed bodies outside London on strategic and cross boundary matters in the wider South East?

    Some participants asserted that again engagement was carried out but many important things weren’t resolved. These included issues of housing, excavation spoil & waste and strategic infrastructure priorities.

    The Mayor further insists that engagement with the wider south east did take place through partnership meetings, officer working group meetings, steering group meetings and summits. In those meetings 5/20 addressed housing.

    There is now a gap of 1000 dwellings per year between London’s planned supply and estimated need which is a small figure (1.5% of overall housing need). The Mayor is clear that he is not asking authorities outside of London to address this to supply but is applying the willing partners approach in order to provide some contingency to address this gap. The Mayor acknowledges this approach takes time and states if they are consistently overtime and not achieving KPI targets they will look at a partial review of the plan.

    Participants argue if more engagement had been made, so the wider south east could understand the ‘willing partners’ approach and what it entails – possibly this could be more successful.

    The Mayor indicates that it is not practical to move people outside of London as the mayor has no jurisdiction out of London. There is no government incentive to move people out of London.

    LB Bromley remind the mayor that the previous inspector gave advice for future plans which was not followed up, with zero outcome. This context highlights lack of meaningful engagement.

    East of England Authorities highlight issues as to how productive engagement has been especially in the outcome of the plan. Speaker questions where the impact of the shortfall of housing this will fall and states that failures are ‘London failures’ and should not impact of south England.

    South East England Authorities also agree that they are unclear on what the ‘willing partner’ approach entails.

    The Mayor disagrees and states that is not true that they have not made any outcomes from engagement. They argue they are jointly engaging with government in issues of housing, jointly addressed infrastructure priorities, they have produced demographic and labour projections, projections on local enterprise partnerships and their contribution to the wider south east.

    The draft plan outlines the willing partner relationship yet there is not a one size fits all approach. The Mayor argues if they do not take this approach the only alternative is for authorities to take a more mechanistic approach.

    Participants again place emphasis on the lack of dialogue between the Mayor and local authorities.

    Notes made by Lyuboslav Petrov and Sophie Hardcastle

    Back to EiP narrative page

    On to the next blog post: Matter 6 Consultation

     

  • M4 notes 16 January

    M4 notes 16 January

    Duty to Cooperate

    Draft London Plan Examination in Public (EiP) 16 January 2019

    Day Two:

    Warning:Just Space and UCL are trying to make available some sort of record of what happens in the EiP for the benefit of community members. Notes are being taken by students and checked/edited so far as possible by more experienced staff and others. Neither Just Space nor UCL offers any guarantee of the accuracy of these notes. If you wish to depend on what was said at the EiP you should check with the speaker or with the audio recordings being made by the GLA. If you spot mistakes in these notes please help us to correct them by emailing m.edwards at ucl.ac.uk

    M4 – Does the duty to cooperate set out in section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 apply to the Mayor’s preparation of the Plan?

    For this issue the panel aimed to focus on whether the duty to cooperate applies in relation to the Mayor in the formulation of the London Plan. The Mayor argues that the duty to cooperate does not apply in the formulation of the London Plan as it is a planning activity in its own right. The Mayor further argues that the London plan is a is a spatial development strategy and a regional strategy thus does not need to comply with this policy as it is only relevant to local authorities as it was introduced by the Localism Act (2010).  The Mayor highlights previous disputes to remind the panel of arguments in their favour in the past.

    Participants disagree stating the duty to cooperate should be applicable to the Mayor on the formulation of the London Plan. Participants argue that the London Plan prepares the way for planning development documents. Participants expand on this through arguing that the plan is prescriptive in providing guidelines and targets which local authorities must follow thus arguing that it is in fact a preparatory document for planning.

    The Mayor further argues that if the duty to cooperate does apply in the formation of the London plan – it should and would be stated, which it is not.

    Participant Mr Edwards (Hillingdon Council) argues that it is matter of law: the duty to cooperate is engaged so far as the preparation of the London Plan prepares the way for local plans. He argues this through two key points: function and effect. The London plan functions in guiding local plans, this is supported by the fact that all local plans must conform to the London Plan. Mr Edwards also highlighted policies linking the two: H1A which sets target for boroughs as mandatory; H1D which requires local authorities to publish annual updates based on targets and H2B concerning small sites that requires boroughs to meet targets. The way these mandatory policies are expressed demonstrates the link between the London Plan and local plans that follow.

    Back to EiP narrative page

    On to the next blog post Matter 5: did the Mayor cooperate?

     

  • M2 notes 15 January 2019

    M2 notes 15 January 2019

    Equality

    Draft London Plan Examination in Public (EiP) 15 January 2019
    Day One:
    Warning: Just Space and UCL are trying to make available some sort of record of what happens in the EiP for the benefit of community members. Notes are being taken by students and checked/edited so far as possible by more experienced staff and others. Neither Just Space nor UCL offers any guarantee of the accuracy of these notes. If you wish to depend on what was said at the EiP you should check with the speaker or with the audio recordings being made by the GLA. If you spot mistakes in these notes please help us to correct them by emailing m.edwards at ucl.ac.uk

    Matter 2. Does the Integrated Impact Assessment and Addendum Report (NLP/CD/04 & 05) indicate that the Plan will help to advance equality of opportunity between people who share a “protected characteristic” as defined in the Equality Act 20103 and those that do not share it and further the other two aims of the Act? In particular, which policies of the Plan will achieve this? 12:06 Bold type denotes questions posed by the panel in advance.

    Panel: seek a broad discussion about equality; we as a public authority have duty to ask and to inform our recommendations, as well as asking it of the GLA. Questions to ask, general principles first then specific contributions.

    Criticism from first speaker: IIA shouldn’t be too general; this IIA has put all protected characteristics together and summed up the average or overall position, rather than analysing and presenting them separately. This dilutes or hides particular impacts.  GLA responded that all of the policies have been assessed against 9 protected characteristics independently; individual assessment had gone back from Arup (consultants) to GLA, then integrated to inform the plan-making.

    Panel: nothing of this detail is expressed in the document but you say that the detailed analysis is underlying the IIA?
    GLA: what we don’t do is to repeat the assessment for every group
    Panel: we hear there’s lack of information about some of those groups; where do estimates of the impact come from? Lack of information is given as explanation for blanks.
    GLA: published baseline in the IIA Scoping Report has a lot of data, but there is more information we base assessments on; there are also professional judgements, …a great deal of information, interesting question of what level of baseline detail to take for London plan,
    Panel: not very nuanced in the IIA tables, outcomes seem positive but not specific, what do you say of the grouping, outcomes may be positive, but maybe negative impacts are obscured due to that integrated or averaging perspective.
    GLA: (response inaudible)
    Panel: that’s a general major issue, now do any third parties have questions?

    My Fair London: fundamental problem is economic inequality, it is not apparent in the document, there no causal recognition of inequality impact to health or other aspects, the structural distribution of inequality plays out in housing, transport,

    Just Space: at London strategic level, what are the impact for Black and Ethnic Minority communities? Robustness of IIA requires that decision makers should have the records. Methodology is flawed: we keep hearing it is hard to find a balance, professional judgement, but BME communities expect to be able to guague the impact of the plan. BME communities are not benefiting evidently, especially in housing. We would quote from the IIA on the Mayor’s Housing Strategy (which feeds in to the London Plan) where the GLA said:

    “While a substantial commitment has been made to providing affordablehomes at low cost rents that are affordable to the poorest Londoners,the Mayor’s agreement with Government means the majority of new affordable homes funded in line with Policy 4.1 and  Proposal 4.2B will befor the ‘intermediate’ market – i.e., for middle income Londoners. This may mean there is less of a positive impact for some lower income households, among whom those with protected characteristics are over-represented, for whom low cost rent homes would be more appropriate. The forms of intermediate housing funded by the Mayor may also be more suitable for younger people, because of their emphasis on home ownership – something that may be more viable for those able to take out a mortgage over an extended period.” 2017

    Mhairi McGhee (HEAR network): questioning process and methodology, the individual assessment, how is it there are still question marks and gaps there? There must have been a final assessment

    Natasha Sivanandan Just Space & StART two points, not good to integrate the various assessments bizarrely, because law does not allow you. We request the separate assessment published. Statutory duty does not allow you to make general statements but evidence-based assessment of what are the impacts and possible mitigation; if not mitigated then need policy changes; the way in which the narrative has been weaved is not accordance with statutory requirements, you keep making generalized statement, I want to see the evidence and causal relationship, listen to us and stop being defensive. We can help you do that, allow us to raise detailes as we hope to do.
    Panel: the legal duties you refer to, please clarify?

    Natasha Sivanandan Just Space & StART: some case laws, European legislation like human rights to decent housing

    Trust for London: environment and equalities already very complicated, maybe it would be better to make equality separate. It would be simpler.

    Mhairi McGhee (HEAR) housing estimation for LGBT population is not addressed in IIA. LGBT concerns addressed only in Culture chapter, about venues. (!)

    Just space: it is not clear which groups will be negatively influenced, like Vietnamese traders, if you do not look into particular groups particularly will not know the needs and properly address it, but we have evidence as working with them. No evidence shown in the plan to indicate such respect.

    Panel to GLA/Arup: you said what you have done but others have different view of what you should have done.

    GLA: question mark in the IIA matrix means outcomes are uncertain at pan-london level, because they would be borough or district level specific, LGBT housing is included, 5.2.
    Data sources are in the Examination Library, draft plan consultation, and this EiP all part of the duty of consultation.
    Paragraph 4 regeneration need to follow Good practice guides, assessment does recognize that.

    Natasha Sivanandan Just Space & StART: can we ask if the detailed assessment can be made public? [see note]

    Panel: further questions I would like to ask for. We notice some groups of representatives haven’t spoken, is there anything you want to say?
    12:40

    John Shephard (Brethren’s Gospel Trust): we haven’t noticed the consultation until it was pointed by Just Space recently.

    Ilinca Diaconescu (London Gypsies and Travellers) main concerns: what is included in the public document is insufficient for the impacts to be considered, IIA Scoping report doesn’t show any data, no statistics or evidence showed as references. It is important for consultant to communicate to the public, not just with those of us who work in representative organisations
    .
    National Alliance of Women’s Organisations : on gender equality we are not able to read what this plan is going to bring for women, important to look into lifestyle cycle —like young women, old women, people in middle age, single parents— bring them into the frame, to use their talents and skills to build the British economy. We don’t see it in the plan.

    Mhairi McGhee (HEAR): There should be accessible formats of the plan, write in plain form as far as possible
    Panel: any more questions about general principle?

    GLA: IIA, Gypsies were specially considered s3, s1 (travel, social infrastructure, education, specifically referenced there). Women, this is a spatial strategy not everything can be achieved in this strategy document,
    Rachael Rooney from GLA: we have an inclusive design panel, tomorrow we will discuss, took the plan to the panel not prior the plan making.

    Mhairi McGhee (HEAR): question about consideration on disability…
    Panel: Please would the GLA comment: if we were to find that IIA is deficient in respect of the legal requirement under equality duty, what remedies might be possible.
    GLA: We could publish the detail assessment, depending on what aspects you seek, then we can provide.
    Panel:, we will reflect on that & background date required. We as panel need to have due regard to that, & we will make it public if we are to request data.
    Natasha Sivanandan Just Space & StART: (strongly requesting the Panel to ask GLA for equalities assessment data and details) A procedural point, if the groups we represent are the subject of substantial data, we should be able to have that newly-released information and time to digest it and we need to be able to come back to those points rather than have the EiP postponed.
    Panel: We heard what you say, but cannot commit until the Panel has met.

    We reach the end of matter 2.

    Notes by Yinuo Hu, Lily Downes, Zoe Rasbash, Emma Woodward

    [Note. The detailed Equalities analysis which the GLA & Arups admtted had been carried out but not published are now to be made available. The Panel met and considered that the analysis was needed and announced that itshould be made available to them by Monday 21 January. Participants would have until (15 a subsequently extended period till) midday 25 February to submit written comments if they felt it necessary.  The “Supplementary Information on Equality Assessment” can now be found on the london.gov website as part of the EiP Library here.

    Back to the EiP narrative page

    There is no blog post for Matter 3, Habitat Regulations Assessment; we believe there may have been no discussion.

    On to the next blog post Matter 4: The Duty to Cooperate – does it apply to the Mayor

  • M1 notes 15 January 2019

    M1 notes 15 January 2019

    Does the draft plan meet legal requirements for sustainability appraisal and strategic environmental assessment?

    Draft London Plan Examination in Public (EiP) 15 January 2019

    Day One: Opening Statements and Matter One

    Warning: Just Space and UCL are trying to make available some sort of record of what happens in the EiP for the benefit of community members. Notes are being taken by students and checked/edited so far as possible by more experienced staff and others. Neither Just Space nor UCL offers any guarantee of the accuracy of these notes. If you wish to depend on what was said at the EiP you should check with the speaker or with the audio recordings being made by the GLA. If you spot mistakes in these notes please help us to correct them by emailing m.edwards at ucl.ac.uk

    Panel’s Opening Announcements

    The panel of inspectors opened the session by asking that participants engage in structured discussions around the matters highlighted on the agenda. Further stating that the purpose of the sessions was to assist in the Inspectorate’s decision on whether the plan is sound.

    Introductory address on behalf of the Mayor of London

    On behalf of the Mayor of London and the Greater London Authority (GLA) Jules Pipe, Deputy Mayor, made an opening statement which is available here in full. In summary, the Deputy Mayor stressed the importance of remembering the context in which the London Plan was conceived, that the plan is intended to be holistic in its approach and that is underpinned by the six Good Growth (GG) policies:

    –      Building strong and inclusive communities

    –      Making the best use of land

    –      Creating a healthy city

    –      Delivering the homes Londoners need

    –      Growing a good economy

    –      Increasing efficiency and resilience

    Mr. Pipe stressed that the adoption of the plan is fundamental to accommodate the impending growth, especially in these uncertain times.

    MATTER 1. SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL (bold type denotes the questions posed by the Panel in advance of the session)

    M1. Does the Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA) and Addendum Report (NLP/CD/04 & 05) meet legal and national policy requirements relating to sustainability appraisal and strategic environmental assessment? In particular:

    1. a) Is it suitably comprehensive and has it sufficiently evaluated reasonable alternatives and does it provide a basis for future monitoring?

    The inspector summarised the basic approach taken by the Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA); 24 objectives identified under six themes (the GG policies) were used to assess five options for the New London Plan. From this the inspector identified six key questions which were asked of the GLA after which other attendees were invited to comment.

    1. Has IIA shaped London plan? (10 am)

    It was clarified by the GLA that the New London Plan and the IIA were developed and published at the same time. There had been interaction between the 2 processes.

    Ian Gordon (LSE London Group) questioned who had selected the adopted approaches presented in the plan, independent consultant (Arup) or the GLA. GLA representative Jennifer Peters, clarified that the preferred approaches identified in the plan were the GLA’s not the independent consultants’.

    Robin Brown (Just Space) stressed that early and effective engagement is required under the SEA Directive to commence no later than Stage B of the assessment process (i.e. scoping). It was argued that the general public had not been given the opportunity to engage with the plan at an early enough stage in the process to have a meaningful and effective influence. In response the GLA representatives stated that they had consulted with the statutory consultees at scoping stage. Moreover, stating that they acknowledged the need for further engagement and so held six workshops labelled ‘City for all Londoners’, each of which attracted 120 attendees. GLA representatives also highlighted their use of social media to reach a broader range of people.

    1. Has consideration of alternatives been adequate? (10:15 am)

    Inspectors questioned where the GG policies were derived from. GLA representative Jennifer Peters responded that they were the product of the ‘City for all Londoners’ consultations. Michael Edwards, on behalf of Just Space, countered that the beginnings of what would become the spatial alternatives can be found in the previous mayor’s Infrastructure Plan 2050and so were crystallised prior to the consultations. GLA added that the strategies were a continuation of the previous mayors’ plans.

    Ian Gordon (LSE) argued the options presented in the IIA are not sufficiently radical, especially on the rejected green belt options) and not enough detail was provided. To which the GLA countered that the IIA’s intended purpose was to highlight the significant likely impacts of each option to inform decision making; these assessments rely on the professional judgement of the consultant (Arup) and the GLA. Furthermore, Stephanie McGibbon (Arup), argues that because this was an assessment of the PanLondon spatial plan the IIA was not the place to have copious detail.

    The Inspectors questioned whether the IIA had gone into enough detail, specifically regarding the selected approach (“sustainable intensification”). Arup replied that each option was assessed to the same level of detail to allow for an easy comparison.

    Robin Brown (Just Space) added that the opening statement of the IIA is weak and does not adequately explain the origins of the options presented, urging the Mayor to consider rewriting this.

    1. Release of green belt land option

    The representatives from the London Borough of Enfield were highly sceptical that the proposed plan adequately dealt with the issue of small sites and industrial land, arguing that the new plan prevents the borough of Enfield from delivering growth. Arup representatives responded by saying that the IIA doesn’t rule out any particular option, such as the one which releases green belt land, the impact assessment’s role is simply to outline the impacts.

    1. Have inequalities and health been given sufficient weight in the IIA? (11:11 am)

    The discussion was opened by the Inspector asking the GLA about the methodological approach taken by the IIA in assessing equalities impacts. The GLA responded that the volume of information on the nine characteristics which protect people under the Equalities Act, 2010 (listed below) was too large to include in the IIA in its entirety but too little to make a decisive assessment of impact in some cases, hence the use of ‘?’ throughout the IIA. The protected characteristics are:

    –     Age;

    –     Disability;

    –      gender reassignment;

    –      marriage and civil partnership;

    –      pregnancy and maternity;

    –      race;

    –      religion or belief;

    –      sex; and,

    • sexual orientation.

    Natasha Sivanandan, (StART & Just Space) strongly argued that the duty of the GLA to ensure that the London Plan does not create new, and exacerbate existing, inequalities is not fulfilled within the IIA. It was felt by many that the Equalities Impact Assessment undertaken within the framework of the IIA simply averaged out the impact the plan would have across the whole of London and failed to acknowledge the cumulative impact this would have on those already marginalised by societal and cultural mainstreams. Alex Bax (My Fair London) concurred, adding that these inequalities play out in a variety of spaces across the public domain and the IIA’s failure to systematically assess the impacts was a fundamental flaw in the plan. In a similar fashion the National Alliance of Women’s Organisations accused the plan and IIA of lacking ‘joined up thinking’, Ilinca Diaconescu  (London Gypsies and Travellers) considered the nine protected characteristics were not systematically assessed throughout the IIA and Suzie Dye (Trust for London) argued that the integrated approach made it difficult for people in one or more of the protected groups to understand how the plan would affect them, calling for the impact assessments to be disaggregated and presented in plain English.

    The GLA representatives responded by assuring the participants that these inequalities were systematically assessed across the nine groups and also in respect of socio-economic status but that data had not been published because it would have overwhelmed readers. Participants requested these assessments be published. [Note: see bottom. These assessments are to be published.]

    Mhairi McGhee, from the Equality and Human Rights Network (HEAR), further questioned the GLA and Arup on the use of question marks when assessing impacts, suggesting that the GLA and Arup have a duty to find out this information and that stating that an impact is unknown is an invalid and unacceptable response in law. GLA representative, Rachael Rooney, replied by saying that the impacts cannot be known at a London-wide level due to the high level and strategic nature of the plan.

    At this point the Inspectors called for a break. Discussions resumed at 11:47 am.

    1. Has the IIA properly assessed cumulative impacts? (11:47 am)

    In response to the Inspector’s question the GLA stated that cumulative impacts have been assessed under each option respectively.

    1. Does the IIA give sufficient consideration to the monitoring of identified impacts?

    The GLA representatives argued that monitoring had been considered to the appropriate standard and that it would have been premature to present identified Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) in the IIA. This was countered by Robin Brown (Just Space) who referred to the SEA Directive guidance when stating that KPIs should have been explored and identified at stage B of the process (i.e. scoping). The representative from the National Alliance of Women’s Organisations supported this notion highlighting the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as important, measurable, international standards used for monitoring the progress of sustainable development.

    7. Have the recommendations made within the IIA been adequately addressed within the Plan?

    In response to the Inspector’s question the GLA argued that the plan has taken into consideration the outcomes of the IIA. No other parties had further comments.

    Notes by Emma Woodward

    [Note to point 4. The detailed Equalities analysis which the GLA & Arups admtted had been carried out but not published are now to be made available. The Panel met and considered that the analysis was needed and should be made available to them by Monday 21 January. The Panel undertook that it would be published and that participants would have until 15 February to submit written comments if they felt it necessary. Later: this data is now available on the Examination web site. ]

    Blog about this first day from Ian Gordon of LSE London

    Back to the EiP narrative page

    On to the next blog post: M2 Equalities impacts