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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
54. 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
55. 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
56. Further Alterations to the London Plan and the
revised draft London Housing Strategy
Emerging policy changes
”
58. 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
59. 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
60. Housing densities
– scope for higher densities in town centres and Opportunity Areas
– recognise importance of sustaining local character in suburbs
61. 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
62. 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)
63. 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
64. Old Oak Common OAPF
Crossrail Depot
IEP Depot
Wormwood Scrubs
West London Opportunity Areas
65. 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
67. 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
68. 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)
69. • 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
74. 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
75. 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
76. 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;
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