Designing the future planning system

  • 777 views
Uploaded on

 

More in: Real Estate , Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
777
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2

Actions

Shares
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • StartGood morning everyone. We’re very pleased today to be able to share with you the key findings of the research we have undertaken, including that in conjunction with the BPF.The survey has now been undertaken over two consecutive years, allowing both the pre and post NPPF picture to be assessed.We have actually undertaken two pieces of work:The first, is a review of all major planning applications in both London and the Manchester metropolitan area.The second is an opinion survey, undertaken with the BPF. Some of you in the audience may have indeed completed a questionnaire. The surveys have thrown up a huge amount of information which we are still processing. We will publish this in due course.Today though, in the short time that we have with you, we intend to highlight just some of the key results and set the scene for our other speakers and hopefully the debate that will follow.End
  • StartBefore I take you through the results of both surveys and share with you some of our thoughts, first let’s quickly recap on the results from last year.For the private sector, the cost, certainty and time associated with negotiating the planning system emerged as the key concerns.In particular, the time taken to achieve planning for a scheme was considered to be the real killer. You will recall that we found that on average major applications were taking 34 weeks or almost 8 months from validation to determination. What also emerged was the often strained relationship that exists between Applicants and LPAs. In a sense there was thought to be two cultures of planning, and a common purpose feels often absent.One of the conclusions from the seminar was that a possible way of improving this situation was for Planning Performance Agreement to be enhanced and given real teeth. Following the seminar GL Hearn was very pleased to be asked by the PAS to take part in a series of presentations it was giving to LAs up and down the country. PPAs are currently the subject of consultation by the Government.So, we feel these sorts of sessions are important to help inform Government thinking and once again we are very pleased that we have DCLG representation here in the form of Tony Thompson.End
  • StartSo, without further delay lets first look at the result of the Major Applications Research.End
  • StartIn terms of the approach taken … [read slide][Major planning application – standard definition - 10 or more dwellings, residential sites over 0.5 ha, non-residential sites over 1 ha or creation/change of use of over 1,000 sq. m. gross]End
  • StartThe survey provides very detailed data on each local authority. As the bar chart shows, taken from this years opinion survey, previous dealings with a particular LPA and even its reputation are important factors in whether the private sector decides to invest.As per last year, we will keep much of the specific LPA data confidential today to avoid the temptation that others might have to produce more “league tables”. An LPAs performance/effectiveness is much more than that and today we are only dealing with some select areas.Nevertheless, a fascinating picture emerges from a global review of the data and a focus on for example, ranges and averages.End
  • StartFirstly, lets looks at major application activity in London.End
  • StartThis shows the overall spread of applications in 2012-2013.In the previous year, 1075 major applications were determined throughout London.This fell to 775 in 2012-13. End
  • StartYes a whopping 28% drop overall from the previous year. I have to say this came as a great surprise to us at GL Hearn and much head scratching continues. The year had felt much busier than the previous and the economy and development sector felt stronger. One possibility which has been raised is the impact of CIL. This may indeed be in part but we have another theory which we will come back to later.End
  • StartThis slide shows the percentage change in major applications determined last year in relation to the previous year. There has been significant fall in numbers in central London boroughs such as Westminster, the City, Islington and Southwark.The largest percentage decreases have however been experienced in Hillingdon, Redbridge and Lewisham.Only Kingston, Camden, Hackney, Newham, Barking & Dagenham and Croydon saw an increase.End
  • StartMoving on now to determination time in London. There has been some startling change here too. You will recall that the average determination in 2011-2012 was 34 weeks …End
  • Start… this has now dropped by 29% to an average of 24 weeks from validation to determination.Within the overall average:Submission to validation time has stayed the sameValidation to resolution is down by 5 weeksResolution to determination is down by 5 weeksOverall the reduction has been10 weeks. A product of reduced numbers? Or is there something else at play? Lets come back to that.End
  • StartAs you can see the range is significant with LPAs taking between 16 and 40 weeks on average.The trend is that the vast majority of LPAs have made improvements with some making huge strides (albeit the overall number of applications in some of these boroughs is relatively small). Some are taking longer however so increased speed is not universal.End
  • StartMoving on to approval rates in London.End
  • StartApprovals have fallen slightly from 85% in 2011-12 to 83% in 2012-13. However, approvals are on average still high.Average approval rates vary significantly across London and range between 57% and 100%.As you can see from the slide, although the averages remain quite close, the differences between local authorities can be quite significant.End
  • StartSo, by what route where these decisions arrived at?Almost two thirds of decisions went to committee and of these around two thirds were approved and a third refused.The remainder were delegated with 89% being approved and only 11% refused.End
  • StartThis slide attempts to bring together into one chart the results relating to activity and speed.To help orientation, we have lassoed four local authorities who have dealt with a relatively large number of applications more quickly than the London average last year of 24 weeks. These are Hounslow, Camden, Southwark and Westminster.End
  • StartFinally, in terms of London, lets looks at appeals. The number of major applications appealed has dropped very marginally over the last two years to 58 and the number of appeals allowed seems perpetually frozen at around 33%. You may think this is very strange indeed – so do I!The concerns of NPPF doubters that life would turn into “planning by appeal” has yet to materialise.End
  • StartAs I previously said, for the first time this year we have also collected the same data on the Manchester area. This allows for some interesting comparisons.End
  • StartIn terms of activity, this was greater than we had anticipated. At 389 major applications, this was almost exactly 50% of the number of London applications for the same period.Manchester City alone determined 95 Major applications (greater than the City, Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea combined).In terms of speed, validation to determination averaged 21 weeks (quicker than London at 24 weeks).End
  • StartIt is also materially more certain with on average a 93% approval rate (vs. 82% across London).End
  • StartMoving on swiftly now to the second annual planning survey, an opinion survey conducted with the BPF.End
  • StartQuickly on the background to the survey.The objective was to understand current views of the planning system and of recent and proposed changes.Two surveys wereconducted over the summer:one of LPAs – 50 respondentsone of either applicants or their advisers – 144 respondentsWe focus today on selected highlights only and in particular comparisons between LPAs and applicants, full results to be published.We also include selected and relevant figures from the first APS in 2012.We have used the main issues raised at this seminar last year of time, cost and the relationship between Applicants and LPAs, to order these highlights. End
  • StartIn order to ascertain general views on time, we asked the same question in 2012. The result:70% of applicants remained dissatisfied with how long applications take to reach a decision, down slightly from 2012We wanted to understand how both sides of the regulatory process viewed each other. There was a significant divergence of opinion on how quickly LPAs process applications:79% of Applicants disagreed with the statement that LPAs process applications speedily whereas 78% of LPAs agreed with the statement End
  • StartIn order to establish applicants’ views on cost, we asked the same question as in 2012:63% of applicants remain dissatisfied with the cost of applications (including consultancy fees, executive time, concessions and planning obligations), down slightly from 68% in 2012End
  • StartIn terms of the effectiveness of the relationship between developers and the LPA, divergent opinions continue to emerge:78% of LPAs deemed relationship to be quite effective and 6% very effectivehowever only 30% of Applicants deemed relationship to be quite effective and 1% very effectiveWe asked a series of questions regarding the impact of the Localism Act and the NPPF and the perceived impact these reforms are having on Government's stated objectives.As of this summer, the prevailing view is that there has only been a limited effect, if any at all …End
  • StartIn fact, when it came to the question: are the main planning reforms producing a leaner and faster system?The answer was a resounding no, with only 18% of LPAs and 9% of Applicants able to agree.End
  • StartYou will recall that when the NPPF was first published, it was heralded by some as being “the developer’s charter”!Both Applicants and Developers agree that this hasn’t been the case. When asked what effect the Localism Act and NPPF has had on development activity:only 38% of applicants and only 22% of LPAs perceived an increaseEnd
  • StartFinally, and before summing up, it is important to touch on the fact that since thelast survey, two significant new measures have been introduced or reinvigorated.On Special Measures:47% of Applicants believe that they will improve LPA performance, 58% think it is fair and 61% think it is a positive moveFrom the LPAs however, 58% do not think it will improve performance, 66% do no think it is fair and 70% do not think it is a positive moveOn PPAs:Of those who entered into PPAs only 24% of Applicants view the experience as positive (the same as in 2012), yet 62% of LPAs who have entered into one think the experience a positive one I don’t think the polarised views on these subjects will surprise many but it does help to demonstrate the different perspectives of LPAs and Applicants.End
  • StartSo, that concludes a canter through some of the key highlights from the research this year.However, before we hear from our developer, Local Authority and DCLG speakers, I would like to conclude my section with some thoughts from a planning consultancy perspective.End
  • StartSome of the key questions arising from the research for us are:“Why have major application numbers dropped dramatically by 28% in London?” “And if major applications in London are being determined 29% quicker, why are applicants still so concerned?”“And furthermore, only 18% of LPAs and 9% of Applicants believe planning reforms have produced a faster and leaner planning system”Many LPAs should be commended on their efforts, especially in the context of a shortage of resourcesThe system has, however, become increasingly complex and the increased scrutiny that LPAs have been put under and the threat of ‘special measures’ has created unintended consequences.The pressure on determining applications more quickly has changed the nature of pre-app and increased its length.As a practice, we are increasingly being told not to submit applications until officers give the go-ahead or face a quick refusal A two-stage planning application process is now evolving:The ‘informal’ pre-app stage. Issues:can become bloated and extend to cover much of the negotiation with officers. pre-apps are (quite rightly) confidential and processing times are not recorded by the LPA or Government there is also a charge for each meeting and it can become very expensive.In fact, from an FOI request recently carried our by GL Hearn on all London boroughs, we have estimated that pre-app fees have risen over 25% over the past two years (and whilst at the same time numbers of applications have dropped significantly). The formal application stage. Issues:following an extensive pre-app stage it can take on average 24 weeks to receive a decisionadvice received during the application stage can sometimes be inconsistent with that received at pre-appa full planning application fee applies and there is no consideration given to fees paid for advice at pre-appWe need to focus on ‘whole-life’ of planning application – pre-app and planning application stages combined. Greater transparency and measurement of the pre application process is required. Fundamentally we need to ask ourselves the question is the application process too complex? Is it over-engineered?End
  • StartFinally, both parties share a common purpose, enabling the right development to happen in the right locations (in other words a presumption in favour of sustainable development)The APS survey has shown again however that the perspective of the two parties can be very different.Perhaps most striking is the difference between the perceived relationships between the two:69% of Applicants do not think Applicants and LPAs work together effectively, yet 84% of LPAs think they doWhilst the regulatory role of the LPA is understood, we really need to focus on creating a better partnership – likely to be a reoccurring theme today. As we all know, there are a number of reasons why both parties must work together effectively - new homes and schools, reinvigorated High Streets, places for people to work and new infrastructure are just a few.Thank you.EndEnd

Transcript

  • 1. glhearn.com The Second Annual Planning Survey: The Results! Designing the future planning system 17 September 2013
  • 2. glhearn.com Introduction and welcome Alastair Crowdy National Head of Development Group 17 September 2013 The second annual planning survey
  • 3. glhearn.com Setting the scene Shaun Andrews Head of Investor and Developer Planning, GL Hearn 17 September 2013 The second annual planning survey
  • 4. First Annual Planning Survey Recap • Key issues last year: ‒ Cost ‒ Certainty ‒ Time ‒ Relationship – although improving, the two cultures of planning • Key area for improvement: ‒ Planning Performance Agreements ‒ Time ‒ Relationship – although improving, the two cultures of planning
  • 5. Major Applications Research
  • 6. Approach • All London Boroughs analysed and compared with 2011/12 results • Manchester metropolitan area also assessed for first time • Objective – assessment of how each borough processes major applications – standard definition • No S73 or 96a applications (variations / amendments) • Timeframe - 12 month period following NPPF (published April 2012) and it immediately follows the previous survey – two years of complete data • Focus – Activity, Time and Certainty
  • 7. Importance of each factor in decision to invest 8.3 8.2 8.1 5.8 5.8 5.4 Site specific opportunity Fit with investment strategy Market opportunity Previous dealings with local planning authority Effectiveness of the planning system Reputation of the local planning authority LPA itself important to decision-making
  • 8. Activity in London
  • 9. No. of major apps determined last year Westminster , 59 Tower Hamlets , 46 Southwark , 43 Camden , 42 Hackney , 42 Hounslow , 41 Croydon , 30 Lambeth , 29 Greenwich , 26 Newham , 26 Barnet , 22 City of London , 22 Islington , 22 Kingston-upon-Thames , 22 Merton , 22 Brent , 21 Wandsworth , 21 Ealing , 19 Hammersmith & Fulham , 19 Havering , 19 Bromley , 18 Hillingdon , 18 Bexley , 17 Haringey , 17 Harrow , 16 Barking & Dagenham , 15 Enfield , 15 Waltham Forest , 15 Sutton , 14 Redbridge , 13 Kensington & Chelsea , 11 Lewisham , 7 Richmond-upon-Thames , 6 Total no. of Apps 775
  • 10. 28% (on previous year) Total number of major apps last year
  • 11. Percentage change in major applications 2011/12 to 2012/13
  • 12. Determination Time in London
  • 13. Major applications being determined 29% faster 0 10 20 30 40 3 3 19 24 5 10 Weeks Submission-Validation Validation- Resolution Resolution- Determination 34 24
  • 14. glhearn.com
  • 15. Certainty in London
  • 16. glhearn.com
  • 17. Delegated vs. committee decisions last year 36% Delegated 64% Commitee Approved 69% Refused 31% Approved 89% Refused 11%
  • 18. Determination time vs. no. of major apps last year Camden Hounslow Southwark Westminster 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 NumberofWeeks Number of Major Apps.
  • 19. glhearn.com
  • 20. Manchester Metropolitan Area
  • 21. Manchester: total 389 major applications last year 95 47 46 41 35 33 29 28 27 8
  • 22. Manchester approval percentage 2012-13 100% 97% 96% 93% 93% 91% 91% 91% 88% 85% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% Manchester boroughs 93%Manchester average 82 % London average
  • 23. Second Annual Planning Survey
  • 24. Second Annual Planning Survey About the survey • Objective – to understand current views of the planning system and of recent and proposed changes • Two surveys conducted over the summer: ‒ one of LPAs – 50 respondents ‒ one of applicants (either applicants or their advisers) – 144 respondents • Only selected highlights today, full results to be published • Selected figures from the first survey also included • Main issues raised last year related to time, cost and certainty
  • 25. Second Annual Planning Survey General views on time • We asked the same question in 2012: ‒ 70% of applicants remained dissatisfied with how long applications take to reach a decision, down slightly from 75% in 2012 • Furthermore, significant divergence of opinion on how quickly LPAs process applications: ‒ 79% of Applicants disagreed with the statement that LPAs process applications speedily whereas 78% of LPAs agreed
  • 26. Second Annual Planning Survey Applicants‟ views on cost • We asked the same question in 2012: ‒ 63% of applicants remain dissatisfied with the cost of applications, down slightly from 68% in 2012
  • 27. Second Annual Planning Survey Effectiveness of developer and LPAs relationship • 78% of LPAs deemed relationship to be quite effective and 6% very effective • 30% of Applicants deemed relationship to be quite effective and 1% very effective
  • 28. Effect of Localism Act and NPPF on producing a leaner and faster planning system - % agree 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% LPAs Applicants
  • 29. Effect of Localism Act and NPPF on development activity 4% 9% 18% 29% 66% 46% 8% 12% 4% 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% LPA Applicants Decreased a lot Decreased a little Neither Increased a little Increased a lot
  • 30. Second Annual Planning Survey Effect of further reforms • Since last survey, two significant measures introduced: • On Special Measures: a) 47% of Applicants believe that they will improve LPA performance, 58% think it is fair and 61% think it is a positive move b) From the LPAs however, 58% do not think it will improve performance, 66% do no think it is fair and 70% do not think it is a positive move • On PPAs: a) Of those who entered into PPAs only 24% of Applicants view the experience as positive (the same as in 2012), yet 62% of LPAs who have entered into one think the experience a positive one
  • 31. GL Hearn view
  • 32. Are things really getting quicker? • “Why have major applications dropped dramatically by 28% in London?” • “And if major applications in London are being determined 29% quicker, why are applicants still so concerned?” • “And furthermore, only 18% of LPAs and 9% of Applicants believe planning reforms have produced a faster and leaner system” ‒ Increased scrutiny has created unintended consequences ‒ Nature of pre-app has changed and its length increased ‒ A two-stage application process now evolving: • „Informal‟ pre-app stage: can be bloated, non-transparent and expensive • The formal application stage: can still take 24 weeks (average), advice can be inconsistent, full fee still applies ‒ Need to focus on „whole-life‟ of application ‒ Fundamentally is the application process too complex?
  • 33. Can LPAs and Applicants work better together? • A common purpose, enabling the right development to happen in the right locations • Survey has shown again however that perspective of the two parties are very different • Most striking perhaps is the difference between the perceived relationship: ‒ 69% of Applicants do not think Applicants and LPAs work together effectively, yet 84% of LPAs think they do • Whilst regulatory role of LPA is understood, we really need to focus on creating a better partnership
  • 34. glhearn.com
  • 35. glhearn.com Planning Reform - the journey continues Tony Thompson Director, Department for Communities and Local Government 17 September 2013 The second annual planning survey
  • 36. glhearn.com The developer perspective: partnerships of the future – what works, and what doesn‟t Emma Cariaga Development Director, Land Securities 17 September 2013 The second annual planning survey
  • 37. The Developer‟s Perspective Emma Cariaga, Development Director
  • 38. Land Securities portfolio London/Retail Portfolio Long term asset managers 25.6m sq,ft portfolio 2.5m sq.ft Development pipeline in London Importance of functioning planning system
  • 39. UK‟s Planning History 2010-2013
  • 40. 2010
  • 41. 2011
  • 42. 2012
  • 43. 2013 – CIL watch
  • 44. Current position Only 2% of LA‟s consider communities benefit from development Only 8% of LA‟s think the Localism Bill & NPPF increased the number of decisions made locally <20% of LA‟s think the NPPF & Localism Bill has produced a faster & leaner planning system (Source GL Hearn Annual Planning Survey)
  • 45. Current position Local Authorities  Budgetary pressures  Major change in burden of responsibility  Skills shortage Investors  Reduced certainty of outcome = higher risk  Wide disparity of outcomes  Longer process Communities  Lack of certainty  Significant input required – consultation fatigue…..  Silent majority often not heard
  • 46. So now what?
  • 47. My vision for the Planning System – 2020 Development perceived as a force for good Replicate approach taken in cities to suburban and rural areas with strategic not detailed plans Further deregulation of the process to improve efficiencies
  • 48. And in the mean time here‟s for some quick wins….  A return to EZ‟s for a finite period to encourage land zoning & simplified permissions to stimulate growth in areas of high demand  2yr grace period with no requirement for planning permission for any applications delivering 100% affordable housing or PRS, to help balance the housing supply in areas of high demand  Short term privatisation of determining large applications in return for a guaranteed decision in 6 months
  • 49. Thank You
  • 50. glhearn.com The local authority perspective: how to make the best of the current environment Mike Kiely Director of Planning & Building Control, London Borough of Croydon 17 September 2013 The second annual planning survey
  • 51. glhearn.com London: the GLA‟s perspective on the results and how London can continue to thrive Stewart Murray Assistant Director of Planning for the Mayor of London 17 September 2013 The second annual planning survey
  • 52. GL Hearn/BPF Research & Seminar 17 September 2013 Stewart Murray, Assistant Director – Planning Email: stewart.murray@london.gov.uk;
  • 53. Mayor’s 2020 Vision  A p o p u l a t i o n e x p l o s i o n : 8 . 3 m n o w ( * C e n s u s 2 0 1 1 ) 9 . 0 m b y 2 0 2 0 s 1 0 . 0 m b y 2 0 3 0 s  A d i r e s h o r t a g e o f h o m e s a n d a f f o r d a b l e h o m e s  T h e m o s t u n c o m p r o m i s i n g g l o b a l e c o n o m y e ve r
  • 54. GLA Strategies & Timetable • Revised Early Minor Alterations to London Plan (REMA) – Assembly Committee early Sept, published Autumn„13 • Mayor‟s Housing Strategy - consultation draft October‟13 • New London Housing Funding prospectus – Late Nov‟13 • Growth Figures per borough/SHLAA, Further Alterations to London Plan (FALP) consultation– Jan‟14 • London Plan EIP - Autumn „14 • Publish London Plan – March‟15
  • 55. Further Alterations to the London Plan and the revised draft London Housing Strategy Emerging policy changes ”
  • 56. LONDON PLAN A growing population – towards 10 million mega city
  • 57. London’s Future housing requirements Depends on: 1. Household formation (CLG currently suggests c52,000 more households pa to 2021- GLA c41,000 but falling after 2021 – intend to use GLA estimates) 2. Rate backlog is addressed – suggest use life of plan to 2036 – need settled for SHMA “At least 40,000 per year” in strategy – mustn‟t pre-judge plan/SHLAA
  • 58. London Housing supply • Need a set number for London Plan – SHLAA early indications just over 40,000pa is possible • How to handle any „gap‟ between requirements and capacity? Opportunity Areas & Town Centres back-up capacity reservoir. • An overall target for long-term covenanted PRS? – Could help support accelerated delivery of supply – Recognises tenure that houses 25% of London households
  • 59. Housing densities – scope for higher densities in town centres and Opportunity Areas – recognise importance of sustaining local character in suburbs
  • 60. Housing Standards & Quality • DCLG standards review – London distinctiveness – Mayor‟s Housing SPG? – Should we strongly maintain current position? • Ambiguity in national consultation document means this could be seen as supporting Government position • London‟s distinct circumstances (scale of provision, densities) justifies maintaining London‟s approach – Mayor‟s design standards will continue to apply to funded affordable housing and other housing investments
  • 61. Strategic Large developments • Emphasise importance to provision and potential for large scale sites, transport corridors and accelerated PRS development • Key role of GLA-led Opportunity Area Planning Frameworks (OAPFs) in bringing forward capacity, e.g. Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea (VNEB)
  • 62. Old Oak Common – Super Interchange Station Strategically located in West London on vast brownfield & rail land High Speed 2 to the North Crossrail to the East High Speed to the Continent Crossrail to Maidenhead GWML to theWest Old Oak Common Euston St. Pancras Stratford Waterloo
  • 63. Old Oak Common OAPF Crossrail Depot IEP Depot Wormwood Scrubs West London Opportunity Areas
  • 64. Old Oak Common Opportunity Area • OAPF draft consultation – now! • London‟s 2nd MDC • 19,000 new homes • 90,000 new jobs • HS2 / Crossrail 1 Super interchange • Relieve Euston Station • Link North and Birmingham to West & East London avoiding bottlenecks • Estuary Airport potential links • New Urban Quarter for West London • Canal-side community/Wormwood Scrubs open space
  • 65. Old Oak Common Opportunity Area Planning Framework Aerial Old Oak Common with Indicative Masterplan
  • 66. Mixed communities and affordable housing Housing Strategy aiming for new approach, post 2015 Round: • social rent/target rents debate • rented homes for working Londoners (PRS) • affordable home ownership (LCHO) - How to reflect in plan? 1. Maintain 60:40 split – learn from AR experience 2. Have overall affordable housing number, no split – maximises flexibility but would need legal view 3. Enshrine anew mix with evidence base: justify in terms of broader economic, resource, welfare factors
  • 67. Existing stock and future investment • Barriers to Delivery - translating approvals to completions: distinguish build out rates; • Speculators/non-builders/land bankers („lose it or use it‟); • Genuine barriers (planners et al?) • Slowness of planning system and uncertainty (e.g. Shell & Smithfield Market call-ins) • Clarify CIL: imposed after account taken of AH, Mayoral CIL and other policy costs (i.e. Nth Devon decision)
  • 68. • Currently just for Crossrail • Crossrail total cost £14.5 billion • Mayor (£7.1bn), Govt.grant (£4.7bn), Business (Canary Wharf, BAA, City) • Funding arrangements agreed by Mayor & Ministers • £600m Development contributions • £300m S.106 / Supplementary Planning Guidance • £300m CIL CIL in London Collection of the Mayoral CIL – One year on
  • 69. CIL in London Collection of the Mayoral CIL – One year on
  • 70. CIL in London Collection of the Mayoral CIL – One year on
  • 71. Borough 2000 - 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013- Augus t Total 2000- 2013 August City of London 72 16 20 5 1 5 12 6 5 142 Barking & Dagenham 36 4 11 8 6 6 10 11 4 96 Barnet 19 1 8 10 12 6 14 8 8 86 Bexley 21 6 8 6 4 9 2 8 1 65 Brent 31 3 3 8 9 9 7 12 5 87 Bromley 54 6 3 5 5 6 4 9 2 94 Camden 15 6 7 3 6 7 7 9 7 67 Croydon 49 6 13 9 8 7 8 4 6 110 Ealing 51 2 8 7 6 7 8 14 7 110 Enfield 32 3 4 1 5 7 7 10 5 74 Greenwich 52 12 28 13 5 11 17 20 7 165 Hackney 38 10 7 7 13 7 9 4 9 104 Hammersm ith & Fulham 39 7 8 9 5 7 11 9 6 101 Haringey 13 3 4 3 2 3 4 5 3 40 Harrow 12 4 5 10 6 5 13 6 5 66 Havering 38 7 2 5 13 3 13 8 3 92 Hillingdon 72 12 15 23 15 9 10 19 11 186 Hounslow 35 7 7 11 7 10 14 12 14 117 Islington 21 5 13 5 9 9 6 5 5 78 Kensington & Chelsea 10 2 6 10 1 2 2 4 7 44 Kingston upon Thames 19 0 4 5 2 1 1 3 1 36 Lambeth 44 13 7 13 4 13 7 8 11 120 Lewisham 26 4 9 7 3 7 8 2 3 69 Merton 32 3 3 13 3 6 1 2 2 65 Newham 74 19 28 20 16 30 20 14 3 224 Redbridge 10 4 1 1 4 0 9 7 1 37 Richmond upon Thames 24 3 4 6 1 1 4 0 4 47 Southwark 82 21 13 20 15 12 13 10 7 193 Sutton 11 3 7 7 4 5 2 3 1 43 Tower Hamlets 129 36 41 47 30 23 33 20 16 375 Waltham Forest 15 4 0 3 0 1 6 3 1 33 Wandswort h 34 14 11 8 9 6 3 13 6 104 Westminste r 59 15 33 26 11 18 15 22 19 218 Totals 1,269 261 341 334 240 258 300 290 195 3488 Table 1: Planning Applications Referred to the Mayor 2000 - Source: GLA Planning Unit
  • 72. Totals 1,269 261 341 334 240 258 300 290 195 3488 Borough 2000 - 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013- August Total 2000- 2013 Augu st
  • 73. Totals 272 109 77 65 26 26 21 47 59 702 Borough 2000 - 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013- Augus t Total 2000- 2013 August
  • 74. Mayor of London, GLA Note: This is Boris Johnson! Stewart Murray Assistant Director –Planning City Hall, London SE1 2AA Email: stewart.murray@london.gov.uk;
  • 75. glhearn.com Debate Facilitated by Liz Peace Chief Executive, BPF 17 September 2013 The second annual planning survey
  • 76. glhearn.com Conclusions and next steps Liz Peace Chief Executive, BPF 17 September 2013 The second annual planning survey
  • 77. glhearn.com