Chairman's Question to Guests (Supplementary) [13]

Sir Edward Lister (Chief of Staff and Deputy Mayor for Policy and Planning):  I know you are aware that we do not keep that data and we cannot give you that data.  We are very dependent upon the data that we get from the boroughs and it is that borough data that we use.  All I can say to you is that I am very happy to go away from here and see what we can do with the boroughs in the future to try to get them to assemble that kind of data and let us have it.  However, if they are not willing to do it, there is not a lot we are going to be able to do.

Andrew Boff AM:  I would be very grateful to you if you could do that because it does make it very difficult.  There are a growing number of people, as you know - and you can imagine what I am going to say now - who are saying that the placing of families above the second or third floors of developments is not a good outcome for them.  I wondered, on the refresh on the London Plan that we are going to expect after this process, whether or not we will be taking in data to look at the outcomes for those families that are living above the second floor in tower blocks and in multiple blocks compared to those who are being brought up in street-based properties.

Sir Edward Lister (Chief of Staff and Deputy Mayor for Policy and Planning):  All I can really say is that we can as part of the database work ask the boroughs, we can see what information the boroughs have and we can pull that forward.  I must make the point to you that of course a lot of people choose to live in properties above ground level.  It is not just those who are forced to live in those properties.  It is sometimes their own choice that they do so.  Therefore, it is not always negative and that is why we have built within the London Plan and the Mayor had very specific policies on play space.  Indeed, as we get planning applications coming through, the Mayor is very robust about wanting to make sure that we do have the play facilities for those properties that are above ground level.

Andrew Boff AM:  It was just that you used the word ‘choice’.  The choice for somebody on a housing waiting list is either you have this or you have nothing and that is the reality of some choices in London for people on housing waiting lists.  The choice for people who are not even on housing waiting lists is that sometimes all the market has to offer is those properties.  Is that a choice?  I do not know.  It is an exercise of a choice amongst the options that are available.  What I am arguing is that there are not enough options available for people to make the kind of choice that they really want to make about where they live.

If I can go on, I note that you made a reference to the improved standards of the public domain or public space.  Do you not think we should be counting private gardens in that figure?

Sir Edward Lister (Chief of Staff and Deputy Mayor for Policy and Planning):  It is something we have not done.  We have always done it as public open space and that has been the measure we have used.  Is that right?

Stewart Murray (Assistant Director – Planning, Greater London Authority):  We have the technical guidance for requirements for what we call ‘amenity space’.  The London Housing Design Guide requires new residential developments to include either amenity space, private and public, balconies or roof gardens in high-density development.  However, obviously, that is part of the design approach.  Public space is part of the requirement in the section 106 agreements as well.  The London housing design standards are a pretty high quality benchmark for achieving those amenity spaces.

Andrew Boff AM:  That is a policy choice about the amount of public space available.

Sir Edward Lister (Chief of Staff and Deputy Mayor for Policy and Planning):  I am not quite following.  Within any planning application, it depends on the proposal but we do look for public open space on a very regular basis.  The Mayor’s policy has been to green London as much as possible and we are constantly looking at those opportunities.

Stewart Murray (Assistant Director – Planning, Greater London Authority):  There is a calculation of what is seen for the density of population to public open space.  In areas where there is large new development, the calculation is built into the provisions for the developer to make either a contribution directly within the design of the development or a contribution for a section 106 payment towards an adjoining or nearby public park.

Andrew Boff AM:  Would you not accept, however, that it makes it more difficult to have developments that are street-based and with gardens if there are very high requirements for public open space within developments?

Sir Edward Lister (Chief of Staff and Deputy Mayor for Policy and Planning):  OK, I am following where this is going now.

Andrew Boff AM:  I am sorry if I was being obtuse, uncharacteristically.

Sir Edward Lister (Chief of Staff and Deputy Mayor for Policy and Planning):  We recognise that where we have ground-floor housing schemes, there is not the same need for public open space in those areas where they have gardens.  That is there in the plan.  Some boroughs quite often are looking to pick up other deficiencies in the area and may try to impose that additional public space on that development.  That is not something we are pushing for here.  We are recognising the needs and the reality.  We are largely concentrating on where we have large-scale, high-density buildings.  That is where we are looking for those open spaces.

Stewart Murray (Assistant Director – Planning, Greater London Authority):  We have specific standards for play space, children’s space and amenity space.  That is as much about creative design as it is about competition for land for open space.

Andrew Boff AM:  I was interested in what you said about the timing of the next review.  Of course based upon what you have said, which is that we cannot expect a new London Plan until the other side of 2016 possibly, it means that issues such as high-rise, street-based developments and parking standards will be burning topics at the next elections in 2016.

Sir Edward Lister (Chief of Staff and Deputy Mayor for Policy and Planning):  No, if I may correct you, parking standards we have already said we are picking up in an entirely separate review.  That is a commitment we made to the Secretary of State.  We are doing two reviews.  The first one is on car-parking standards and the work has started on that.  That we want to try to get out before the end of the year.  The second one is on space standards, which will pick up the DCLG changes that it is bringing in.  That is the second review that is underway.  Those two will be settled before the next election.

Andrew Boff AM:  I am pleased about that and I am pleased about you recognising the problems there are in parking standards.  Your office is constantly pointing to Barking Riverside going forward and the only thing wrong with Barking Riverside, as far as I am concerned as a resident, is the parking and I think all the other residents think so.  Actually, there was not enough parking provided for in that development.  We have time now.  I absolutely do welcome your recognition that we needed that review for parking standards.

Sir Edward Lister (Chief of Staff and Deputy Mayor for Policy and Planning):  May I just pick up your point about houses with gardens?  It is just worth making the point that seven eighths of all developments are apartments in London.  They are not houses.

Andrew Boff AM:  Yes.  It depends whether you think that is a good thing or a bad thing.  I have my opinion and other people have theirs.  Certainly, on the position on high-rise and the position of street-based properties, I am looking to you on that refresh to provide in the London Plan a requirement that all developers explain to us why they have not exercised the choice of making a street-based development before we consider a planning application.  That is the kind of development that Londoners actually want.  It seems to me that we are pandering in many cases.  Although I think our group today will be supporting this revision, but only because we can see another London Plan coming up fairly soon behind it.  We will be looking forward to a time when Londoners are offered what they want in London ‑‑

Tony Arbour AM:  I would like a palace!

Andrew Boff AM:  ‑‑ and the London Plan should offer those options to them.  We consider that there should be further revisions at some point in the future.  The next election will determine, I believe, what the outcome of many aspects of the London Plan will be.  I believe that street-based developments and the position of high-rise are going to be debated as part of that election.  They are going to be significant and Londoners are going to reach their decision on that.

Sir Edward Lister (Chief of Staff and Deputy Mayor for Policy and Planning):  Could I just reassure you?  We do have quite a lot of street-based schemes coming through.  I am slightly anticipating the kind of question.  We have identified quite a number that have been approved by the Mayor recently.  Indeed, one of them won an award at the London Planning Awards a couple of nights ago.  Therefore, we do recognise fully the need for street-based.

However, we are also caught with the density matrix that we have here.  We have a growing population in London.  Our calculation on street-based properties is that you get about 70 dwellings per hectare.  If you do mansion flats, you get about 140 properties or apartments per hectare.  However, when we are dealing with something like Vauxhall Nine Elms and some of these other areas, we are up in 300 or 400 dwellings per hectare, just to put it in context.  London is a fast-growing city and density is going to increase dramatically.  On our scope for street-based properties, we support it 100% and fully understand your argument, but it is going to be largely in outer London.  It will not be in central London.  Central London densities are going to go up significantly.

Andrew Boff AM:  We disagree, but thank you.