Lewisham Planning in la la land?

[Tim Lund]

Photograph: Steve Parsons/PA

Good story in the Gaurdian yesterday.

Eric Pickles, the communities secretary, has warned he will strip local councils of their planning powers and hand them to a centralised planning inspectorate if they show a record of poor-quality or slow decision making.

The threat is designed to force councils living in "an economic la la land" to allow more housebuilding in their areas.

Could he mean Lewisham?

Buried away from the heart-warming rhetoric about localism, empowerment, etc., etc. ...

The key proposals were disclosed in a Commons written statement, which said: "We propose to legislate to allow applications to be decided by the Planning Inspectorate if the local authority has a track record of consistently poor performance in the speed or quality of its decisions."

but

builders' groups warned the promise to legislate to make housing developments more profitable from 2013 might actually delay the much-needed surge in housebuilding. Roger Humber, strategic policy adviser to the House Builders Association, said: "This will not lead to a surge in immediate housebuilding, and will take time to work through."

Precisely, which is why this is more important than the headline grabber about a temporary easing to allow home extensions.

BTW, I picked this story up thanks to following @AndrewLainton on Twitter - his blog is here. Another planning and housing commentator whose tweets I find interesting is Colin Wiles - @colinwiles on Twitter - with his web site here

[michael]

Lewisham council is slow at making decisions, this is certainly in part due to the redundancies in the department over the last few years, leaving fewer planning officers. Looking at recent appeals I have seen, it is rare for the council to make the wrong decision according to the inspector - although it does happen. I have also seen a few cases where the applicant (more than 3 months into the process) knows what the recommendation will be from the council and deliberately appeals due to non-determination prior to the recommendation being made.

Most cases I have seen where the application take more than 3 months are because the council is waiting for further details from the applicant.

I have also seen one council refusal upheld by the inspector on unsafe grounds. The inspector did not have as good an understanding of the case as the council officers and significantly misunderstood the boundary of a conservation area. Although I was happy with the outcome, I was disappointed that the inspectors decision was not based on the facts of the case, and I don't know how the owner could have gone about an appeal against the inspector's decision.

I find that when a case goes to the inspector there is far less information provided to local residents and far less opportunity to play a part in the process, at least when the application is dealt with purely by written submissions as is almost always the case.

I'm not convinced that it is Lewisham council preventing new housing being built, and if you look at the cases of Loampit Vale, Tigers Head, Green Man, Greyhound, Tyson Road, Catford Dog Track, or Bell Green you will see that Lewisham has granted many applications for increased housing, often against local opposition. Perhaps you can point to a major application where the council have refused permission for substantial housebuilding where you feel it should have been allowed?

[stuart]

I have been involved in three planning applications with Lewisham.

The first two I was the applicant for significant house extensions. I was dealt with helpfully. The permission was granted in about 3 months (I had heavily consulted the neighbours so there was no objections there). I was highly satisfied.

The third was as an objector together with other neighbours about the conversion of a 'modern' house into an expanded traditional house. This was about style rather than content. The hearing process was fair and the planning committee decided narrowly against us. The applicant was a developer who enlarged, sold at a profit and bu**ered off.

So overall while I would have like the third decision to have gone the other way I felt comfortable with the process with an overall impression (including observation at other planning committees) that when in doubt they are more likely to choose the more lenient path.

I'm sure some other planning departments/committees are more troublesome but there are ways of dealing with recalcitrant authorities without throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I was also interested in Radio 4's vox pop around Richmond yesterday when some obviously government supporting voters were very circumspect about the extension proposals.

In other news the government is also proposing to relax planning control on the expansion of business premises. This is more attractive. Not only is it an immediate stimulus to construction but ongoing in expanding employees and really helping growing businesses. A triple whammy. As long as you put in some sensible restrictions like not within x metres of a residential property then there is not going to be much downside.

I have to say this government is getting a bit of form in not thinking through proposals through as thoroughly as we should hope and designing them to avoid unnecessary losers and creating equally unnecessary opposition.

That's not the way to win a second term.

Stuart

[marymck]

Sadly the extensions that get built during this temporary amnesty will not themselves be temporary. Their effects will be permanent and in many cases to the detriment of the neighbourhood. If the proposed extensions have merits and they will be passed under the existing system. Sadly the la la land here is in believing that no neighbours or neighbourhoods will suffer as a result of - as I said on the post to which Tim sneeringly refers - the government's attempts to sneak the "temporary" extension amensty in under the radar. Hide the bad news with a flurry of news about new homes and temporary jobs in the construction industry. Hmm where have we seen that before?

[leenewham]

There are already lot sof permitted development rights, this is an extension of them.

Building regulations will still apply I presume.

I think it's either a badly thought though idea or a poorly communicated one. The main issue with councils and planning are the strict rules that circumnavigate common sense and the cuts which means there aren't enough officers in any council to enforce anything.

And that's partly Mr Picles fault.

[Tim Lund]

One reason I follow the Tweeters I mentioned is to help me get local issues in persepective, which in another way, Stuart's comment here also does. As the former Chair of SydSoc and follower of this Forum, I am far more aware of cases where Lewisham have performed poorly than what will be the very much greater number of cases dealt with entirely competently and reasonably - this is how Stuart's comment helps.

I do not know if Lewisham is a council Eric Pickles might think is living in La La land, but I would like to know, because of its potential local implications. I can imagine two (related) ways he might come to this view - (1) because not enough new houses are getting built here, and (2) because he can point to specific cases where good applications have been unreasonably prevented. Michael's reference to Loampit Vale, Tigers Head, Green Man, Greyhound, Tyson Road, Catford Dog Track, or Bell Green is an argument to say that applications for more housing do get approved - although he would not call all - any? - of them good. However, it doesn't say anything about applications which have not got through. He will know more about such cases than me, and we'd probably be able to agree that they would not have been good.

Rather than looking at specific cases, it would help to have some aggregate numbers for how many new homes are getting build in Lewisham. I don't have these to hand, but I have looked in to it, and from memory the overall picture was that Lewisham was fairly typical in not getting enough new homes built, but far from the worst - so I suspect we're not a particular target. Even so, it would be useful to have these numbers, and I will try to find something in due course.

The main purpose of my OP was to identify the political realities in this area, a major one being that, for all the garbage about localism, power resides at the centre, and it demands more housing units. It also corresponds to the economic reality which shows up in house prices which would allow developers to make attractive profits if only they could - but clearly they are constrained by the politics.

Away from the policial centre there is plenty of opposition to such demands - e.g. from planning departments and local residents and community groups - so the pressure is resisted as far as the different groups involved are able to, and the result is a pattern of development which, while massively failing to deliver the new homes needed, is perceived as over development. If we look at what this pattern of development is in Lewisham, we see a Council which is able to push through large developments with significant levels of social housing, such as those cases Michael identifies, which come at the cost of green space, such as in Tyson Road, or old pubs such as the Green Man, Tiger's Head. In fact, when earlier this year I raised the issue of housing and the role of civic societies with my local councillors, one of them smiled indulgently and assured me that they were quite capable to rolling over any objections ...

Why should this be? Well, I suspect that part of it is that local amenity societies refuse to face up to the overall need for more housing, specifally higher densities on exiting residential sites, and so the community ends up loosing what they claim they most value, grandstanding with hysterical arguments about out children being seen by the neighbours; they should learn that curtains are not only for twitching.

Michael's comments about redundancies in the department over the last few years, leaving fewer planning officers are also interesting, doubtless correct, and suggest economies of scale are likely to lead to consolidation of such services in larger units than Lewisham. I would hope, for the sake of the localism fellow citizens will really want, that this is done from City Hall rather than Whitehall.

[Eagle]

I must admit to beinf far from happy at this coalition policy.

Of course we need some new houses but they should all go through proper planning proceedures.

At present our part of London has many green areas and may it continue.

[Tim Lund]

I must admit to beinf far from happy at this coalition policy.

Of course we need some new houses but they should all go through proper planning proceedures.

At present our part of London has many green areas and may it continue.

Here, here. And outside La La land, the only way this can happen is higher rise development. The choice is between the sort of developments with large amounts of social housing we are getting, or a return to allowing small scale redevelopment of exiting residential sites to a height we already accept where the original development happened before the era of the motor car. This is what our amenity societies need to be getting their heads round. Alternatively, we loose further valuable local green lungs such as Tyson Road.

[michael]

Just a quick response that the answer is not high rise in suburban locations but high rise and high density development on new sites that are better able to include the necessary supporting infrastructure.
Loampit Vale is an example of this on a small scale in Lewisham, but London's growth will not come from suburban areas, but from major sites such as North Greenwich, Stratford, Isle of Dogs. These are ideal areas for massive expansion of housing provision and work quite well. There continues to be hugh areas of East London with lower density levels than South West Lewisham (as I remember pointing out on another thread). Why would the government want to build high rise here rather than in Stratford, Thames Gateway or more rural areas where entire new town can be built, just as happened in Forest Hill in the 1930s.

[leenewham]

I must admit to beinf far from happy at this coalition policy.

Of course we need some new houses but they should all go through proper planning proceedures.

At present our part of London has many green areas and may it continue.

I'm not overwhelmed by the policy, although I'm happier with a coalition government rather than just the Tories. Give me David Laws or Vince Cable in any government rather than Jeremy Hunt, Gove etc.

Loampit Vale is horrible, but the only way Lewisham could make it pay was to bend over forwards for the developers. The hi rise there is pretty awful and they still haven't sorted out the roundabout. It's a shame as it was looking ok before they made it so ABSOLUTELY HUGE. I can't think of any sensitive developers.

[michael]

Loampit Vale is horrible, but the only way Lewisham could make it pay was to bend over forwards for the developers. The hi rise there is pretty awful and they still haven't sorted out the roundabout. It's a shame as it was looking ok before they made it so ABSOLUTELY HUGE. I can't think of any sensitive developers.

Tim, Is this the sort of thing you want to see more of in Sydenham and that amenity societies won't face up to?
Virtually all the Forest Hill Societies objections (and approvals) to planning applications are published on the website, perhaps you could point out the 'grandstanding with hysterical arguments' included in any reasons for objection? Not that we don't raise concerns about overlooking windows less than 20 metres away from neighbours - those are Lewisham's (and national) guidelines not ours.

[leenewham]

Hi Tim,

Loampit Vale is so over the top in scale it dominates the whole area, and not in a good way. It was looking quite good before it had the extra high rises.

The Greyhound development isn't bad, but again it's a story too high and should really be ths same height as the shops on Kirkdale.

Bell Green is pretty shoddy. The design isn't bad but the finish, render and choices of pink breeze block is awful and the green portacabins opposite are really bad.

We really aren't good at large scale developments in this country, developers dont' care about local communities and will squeeze every last £ out of a development. Seemingly there is no honour (although they have their 106 agreements so I guess they think they have done their thing.

It's puzzling as we have some of the best architects in the world in the UK (and some of the worst).

Tories believe in less regulation. This is a Tory policy, very much at the heart of Mr Pickes who wanted to do away with planning for security shutters before they did yet another uturn a few months ago. The problem is, there need to be rules, free for all don't work, partly because many developments are, to be frank, crap.

Look ar Kirkdale. Evert change there has been negative aside from the new Woodsman which looks great (Apologies to Mary on this one!). Until developers can wow us with fantastic developments without being policed, they need to be controlled. They just aren't trustworthy at the moment (and it's not the architects fault, it's the developers brief).

[Tim Lund]

Hi Tim,

Loampit Vale is so over the top in scale it dominates the whole area, and not in a good way. It was looking quite good before it had the extra high rises.).

As I know very well, cycling past it as I often do and every time it seems to loom higher. You may be falling for Michael's misunderstanding (misrepresentation?) of my views, which are that existing residential sites could be redeveloped with an additional storey. I live in a 1930s two storey infill with three storey Edwardian houses on either side, and as a result, neighbours can look down from their roof top terraces at whatever I get up to in my garden.

Michael knows very well that I do not want to see developments such as Loampit Vale in our area - and I'm not too keen on it even there. But maybe Michael thinks more like the planners featured in the recent BBC2 programme on the 1970s developemt of Deptford - but just doesn't want to live there himself.

The Greyhound development isn't bad, but again it's a storey too high and should really be ths same height as the shops on Kirkdale..).

I think anything two storeys or more higher than immediately neighbouring properties is going to look out of place, but that leaves plenty of scope for higher densities.

Bell Green is pretty shoddy. The design isn't bad but the finish, render and choices of pink breeze block is awful and the green portacabins opposite are really bad.

We really aren't good at large scale developments in this country, developers don't care about local communities and will squeeze every last £ out of a development. Seemingly there is no honour (although they have their 106 agreements so I guess they think they have done their thing...).

I think the problem is that there's little incentive for large scale private investment in residential property, because (1) there are massive tax breaks for small scale investment - e.g. that individual owner occupiers don't have to pay capital gains tax on sales - and so prices are artificially high; and (2) because developments of 10 or more properties must include social housing, which long term investors will not want.

It's puzzling as we have some of the best architects in the world in the UK (and some of the worst).

Not puzzling at all. Our good architects will find work where the planning systems work better, and our worst one will just take the easy money.

Tories believe in less regulation. This is a Tory policy, very much at the heart of Mr Pickes who wanted to do away with planning for security shutters before they did yet another uturn a few months ago. The problem is, there need to be rules, free for all don't work, partly because many developments are, to be frank, crap...).

Tories often say they believe in less regulation, but in their leafy heartlands their core supporters will have virtually identical views to Michael on this sort of thing. Maybe Michael is a closet Tory, or like Eagle will become one as he matures

Look ar Kirkdale. Evert change there has been negative aside from the new Woodsman which looks great (Apologies to Mary on this one!). Until developers can wow us with fantastic developments without being policed, they need to be controlled. They just aren't trustworthy at the moment (and it's not the architects fault, it's the developers brief).

Developers will ALWAYS need to be controlled, but it's better controls we want. The system we have at the moment is what leads to overbearing unimaginative developments in unwanted locations.

And remember folks, a key idea of localism is that neighbourhoods which do accept more housing are the ones who get the benefit of whatever community infrastructure levy there is going.

[Tim Lund]

Virtually all the Forest Hill Societies objections (and approvals) to planning applications are published on the website, perhaps you could point out the 'grandstanding with hysterical arguments' included in any reasons for objection?

I was thinking of Mary's comments in the thread I linked back to. But please send me a breakdown of when FH Soc does cite being overlooked as a planning concern.

[Eagle]

Tim
Perhaps Michael will get wise with age and become a Conservative supporter.

I do not support their and Lib policy in this case. We have enough new building in this area. There are simply no jobs for any newcomers and not likely ever to be.
Build houses where jobs are or will be in the future.

[Tim Lund]

But Eagle, there are jobs in London - it's why so many working age people want to live here.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[michael]

Well I think I am just about beginning to understand Tim's view on this, and I can only apologise if what you have been hinting at all this time is not high rise developments, but only low-rise high-density development (which can work in some places, just like high rise can in others).

An interesting case is going before a planning committee on Thursday regarding 49 Houston Road, the outcome will be interesting but also the role of neighbours and civic societies is interesting.

The first proposal for this site was http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk/LEWIS-XS ... mkey=64964
The conversion of a terraced four bedroom house into 7 self-contained studios. This was opposed for a variety of reasons and was rejected by the planning department:

The development would result in the loss of a single family dwelling house and the replacement studio flats would be very small and would fail to represent a good standard of living accommodation, to the detriment of future residents.

A couple of weeks later a further application was submitted http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk/LEWIS-XS ... mkey=65849 to change this into 1 three bedroom and 1 two bedroom flats. Further objections were made, including Tim's favourite concern about overlooking.

In April and again in May the plans were revised as a result of the objections received and in June a local meeting was held where objectors reiterated their continued concerns. As a result a third revision was made at the beginning of July.

Most of the troubling aspects of the applications have been dealt with and the officers are recommending approval. I still have some remaining concerns about the poor internal layout, but at least there is no longer a ground floor bedroom with just a offset roof light surrounded on three sides at first floor level (the dungeon as I called it). And the overlooking concern has been dealt with by the use of obscured windows.

I have no doubt that the objections from neighbours and civic societies have had a positive impact on this application. In particular I feel that conversion to two units rather than seven units is a more reasonable density for the location. I don't believe that if any of the three previous plans had gone directly to the inspectorate that there would have been such an opportunity for consultation and improving the quality of the application, although I would hope that it would have been rejected, without the opportunity for the developer to improve their plans.

Come along on Thursday to find out how it all turns out, it is a meeting heard in public, unlike most decisions of the inspectorate.

[Tim Lund]

Well I think I am just about beginning to understand Tim's view on this, and I can only apologise if what you have been hinting at all this time is not high rise developments, but only low-rise high-density development (which can work in some places, just like high rise can in others).

Well, that's progress. I've been looking through previous postings to see why this misunderstanding should have happened, and the only reason I can see is that in the Rehousing People in Stoke on Trent thread I argued that high rise living didn't have to be a social disaster, but only in more central urban locations - e.g. Manhattan or near Victoria Park, Hong Kong.

I always assumed that Michael's suggestion that I thought this would be a appropriate here was tongue in cheek, and that he understood that in the context of an area where two storeys is the norm, 'higher' could mean just three. But then, that the mathematician in me.

An interesting case is going before a planning committee on Thursday regarding 49 Houston Road, the outcome will be interesting but also the role of neighbours and civic societies is interesting.

The first proposal for this site was http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk/LEWIS-XS ... mkey=64964
The conversion of a terraced four bedroom house into 7 self-contained studios. This was opposed for a variety of reasons and was rejected by the planning department:

The development would result in the loss of a single family dwelling house and the replacement studio flats would be very small and would fail to represent a good standard of living accommodation, to the detriment of future residents.

A couple of weeks later a further application was submitted http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk/LEWIS-XS ... mkey=65849 to change this into 1 three bedroom and 1 two bedroom flats. Further objections were made, including Tim's favourite concern about overlooking.

In April and again in May the plans were revised as a result of the objections received and in June a local meeting was held where objectors reiterated their continued concerns. As a result a third revision was made at the beginning of July.

Most of the troubling aspects of the applications have been dealt with and the officers are recommending approval. I still have some remaining concerns about the poor internal layout, but at least there is no longer a ground floor bedroom with just a offset roof light surrounded on three sides at first floor level (the dungeon as I called it). And the overlooking concern has been dealt with by the use of obscured windows.

I have no doubt that the objections from neighbours and civic societies have had a positive impact on this application. In particular I feel that conversion to two units rather than seven units is a more reasonable density for the location. I don't believe that if any of the three previous plans had gone directly to the inspectorate that there would have been such an opportunity for consultation and improving the quality of the application, although I would hope that it would have been rejected, without the opportunity for the developer to improve their plans.

Come along on Thursday to find out how it all turns out, it is a meeting heard in public, unlike most decisions of the inspectorate.

There are many points here which I might pick up on, but not this morning, and probably on another thread. But whatever disagreements I have with Michael, and however much I think he should think more carefully about some of the positions he takes, I would like to acknowledge his using this Forum to explain himself and what the FH Society does. He may, IMHO, quite often be misguided, but he acts like someone who believes in an open society, which is more important than being right every time.

[Eagle]

Tim
There may be jobs in some parts of London but far more unemployed than jobs.

I would Expect few private sector jobs in SE26 AREA.

[Tim Lund]

But Sydenham is a suburb, so it's London job growth that's more relevant

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]