FOI - LSE density research

Since when has the Sustainable Residential Quality Density Matrix proved to be a constraint to delivering housing, especially around town centres and transport hubs or even Opportunity Areas (e.g. Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea, White City, Old Oak)?  What is the message that this headline gives to the development industry? Is it likely to be interpreted as a step-change in density across the board?

It would seem that the proposed “case-by-case” approach – wasn’t it always that? – will now encourage developers to submit schemes with much higher densities and the only “constraint” in this “design-led approach” is when the planning officer considers that a scheme has gone too far and that a refusal could be defended. All this is very “touchy feely”/subjective and relies on the planning officers negotiating skills and understanding of design when faced by architects arguing for their client maximising the density. If the only safeguard for communities is the planning officer’s negotiating skills in confidential discussions, it is time that the community engagement process starts at the same time rather than wait until the scheme has been “agreed”.

If the 460 tall buildings in the planning pipeline are the result of a density matrix-constrained process, why should the community have confidence that a “design-led approach” would produce better results – or maybe design was not a consideration previously.

The density matrix indicated the appropriate density range for a site – the proposed case-by-case approach, seeking to optimise density will need to embrace the local community’s aspirations, including not only affordable housing but specific area-based contributions to improving local social infrastructure.

I have seen the research reports that the GLA commissioned – they do not demonstrate that – if you think otherwise, please indicate which parts you consider justify this.

The 2015 London First report by Savills – an advocacy research report – did not provide evidence of this nor did it advocate abandoning the matrix. Yolande Barnes has recently suggested to me that it might constrain the development of higher density “London-style villages” around town centres and stations. As far as I can see, these are the very locations where the matrix explicitly encourages higher-density development. Please can you confirm that.

Please could you provide me with:

• Any references in the density research by LSE which you think demonstrates that the density matrix has been a constraint and whether it recommended abandoning it;
• the relevant evidence base which demonstrates that the SRQ density matrix has constrained densities (especially in highly-accessible locations), given that there have been a high proportion of schemes where the densities have exceeded the top of the appropriate density range for the site;
• the report to the Mayor and Deputy Mayors for Planning and Housing, to justify the the removal of the density matrix from the Draft London Plan – if necessary, treat this as an FOI request.