Chairman's Question to Guests

Sir Edward Lister (Chief of Staff and Deputy Mayor for Policy and Planning):  Thank you, Chairman.  I will just say right at the beginning - and I know that one or two people, particularly Nicky [Gavron AM], would probably sympathise with this argument - that we have and we are very fortunate at the Greater London Authority (GLA) to have some really first-class planners and first-class advisors in the organisation.

I would just like to play a little bit of tribute, if I may at the beginning, to the team, obviously under Stewart [Murray] and Richard Linton [Principal Strategic Planner, GLA], John Letts [Strategic Planning Manager, GLA] and Jennifer Peters [Strategic Planning Manager, GLA] have been the main authors, but they are actually backed by quite a few other people in the Planning Department who have also done an enormous amount of work.  Although we may disagree with various bits within the FALP, I do not think anybody doubts that it is a superb piece of work and is worthy of an organisation like City Hall.  I just wanted to record that.  I would be very grateful if perhaps the Assembly might like to note that or perhaps record something along those lines.

I will go over in the next few minutes some of the specific issues that have been raised following the consultation, the inspector’s recommendations and the Government’s letter.

Right at the beginning, I would like to acknowledge that this has been a real challenge both in terms of planning policy and in aspects of the planning process.  The current signs are that while London may not be facing the sorts of structural changes we experienced back in the 1980s, it may be moving towards a much higher growth trajectory than anticipated in the earlier London Plan.  Historic censuses suggest that this could be greater than anything we have ever seen before and certainly greater than the kind of expansion this city saw in the 19th century.  These alterations are primarily concerned to make a timely and effective response, especially in terms of housing.

I need to say right at the beginning that there is some uncertainty at the scale and nature of the trends.  The response has been made through the alterations to the 2011 Plan, rather than a full review.  A full review must follow once the trends have bedded down and we have a clearer idea of what the future may hold.  This means the current philosophy of the Plan is that it seems to accommodate its growth within the boundaries, without encroaching on the Green Belt or other open space.  While the Assembly supported this position at the Examination in Public (EiP), some other participants questioned it, including the inspector.  However, we think that there is strong evidence to show that it is achievable.  That is not to say it will not pose challenges.

The alterations, therefore, retain and refine the Mayor’s commitments to accommodating growth in the most sustainable way and without compromising his established policies to protect and enhance the environment, not least our historic heritage.  The Plan’s emphasis on securing good quality developments has not been undermined.  Indeed, we are now proposing a new alteration to reinforce this by taking on board the optional higher national housing standard, which the Government intends to publish shortly and which we, of course, have already introduced.

In more general terms, the alterations seek to provide the greatest possible certainty in what are going to be very uncertain times.  The Mayor is mindful that acknowledging uncertainty can in itself present challenges for others, not least for authorities across the east and southeast of England.  We are working with these authorities to put in place more effective arrangements to co-ordinate strategic policy and investment across the entire region.  In publishing the 2050 Infrastructure Plan, the Mayor has put in place a mechanism to open up dialogue on what the longer-term future might look like and he hopes that Londoners and others beyond our boundaries will engage positively with this and with a full review of the Plan.

If I may, I will turn to the Assembly’s formal response and consultation on the alterations.  It is fair to say that by a significant margin there is more that unites all of us in this room than actually divides us.  The points of differences are relatively small.

On the big issues, I think we are all agreed.  For the time being at least, we should stick with the current philosophy of the plan: accommodating London’s growth, as I say, within our boundaries and not on the Green Belt.  We must recognise demographic uncertainty and plan for it as robustly as we can.  We must put in place a framework to enable our town centres to reinvent themselves for the 21st century, not least so that they can rise to the challenges of the internet age and the potential that gives us to increase housing and employment.  We must take a more proactive approach towards new forms of housing, not least by encouraging self-build and institutional investment in the private rented sector (PRS).  We should continue to support the creation of mixed and balanced communities.  We need to be very alive to striking the right balance between bringing forward development capacity for housing and employment, whether it be in terms of offices or industry.  We also recognise that a step-change is required to enable cycling to take a larger share in the trips we make.  I think we all agree that greater emphasis needs to be given to improving e-connectivity and long-term infrastructure planning more generally.  We agree on more specific issues like the need to address the housing requirements for older London and to ensure that the planning system recognises the distinct role played by local pubs.

More generally, the Assembly has recognised that this is a focused alteration and has therefore taken the opportunity to flag matters which could be addressed in a full review of the Plan.  These include issues around the wider implications for population growth - for example, for open space and dwelling types - as well as the continuing challenge of climate change.  All this will be taken into account in the ongoing work in exploring the options for the full review.

Finally, there are some issues on which we agree to disagree, for example, the amount of detail we should go into in a broad strategic plan relative to what we think is the most appropriate in local plans or Supplementary Planning Guidance documents (SPGs).  There are also a few substantive points, not least the role of affordable rented housing in meeting London’s housing needs, which we have discussed earlier.

The EiP inspector gave careful thought to all the representations and to those of the other 323 bodies that made submissions.  His report sought to take account of a very wide range of views and his analysis of them and resultant detailed recommendations are perhaps more nuanced than some headlines suggest.  I would like to, therefore, take this opportunity to explain why the Mayor accepted the detailed recommendations, even though he did not have to.

One of the inspector’s headline recommendations suggests that boroughs should not carry out their own assessments of housing needs.  However, in this uniquely complex and large housing market area, both the strategic and the local levels must work together to identify and address need, a point which the inspector seems to accept implicitly in the body of the report and in the details of his recommendations.  Thus, although he recommends removing two references and supporting text to local needs assessments, he does not challenge the substantive policy reference to them, which reflected the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and will drive housing development across London.  In signing off the alterations, the Government supported the Mayor’s view on this.

The inspector’s recommendation on the application of an intermediate housing policy is welcomed because it places the Plan more clearly in the context of national policy without compromising strategic intent to make the best use of limited resources to meet Londoners’ pressing need for affordable housing.  Similarly, his recommendations for closer working with boroughs on waste matters when establishing a Mayoral Development Corporation formalises what is already happening in a formal way.

Finally, from the beginning of the process, the Mayor has recognised the uncertainty over the future scale and nature of London’s growth and has seen this alteration effectively as an interim plan until trends have bedded down and a full review can be taken.  The inspector’s recommendation that we work on this review in 2015 only underscores what the Mayor has already in fact begun: starting to identify key issues for the future and exploring more effective arrangements for access and for working across the southwest and southeast.

That is probably all I would like to say as opening statements and perhaps other things can be picked up as we go.