LAC 2014/4 Agenda item 6 PUBLIC London Advisory Committee This report is available for public access LAC/GLA Workshop Report Date of meeting 6 February 2014 Presenter and Author Nigel Barker Planning and Conservation Director, London 1 Issue 1.1 This is a short report back to LAC on the workshop held with the GLA at Design Council CABE on 9 January 2014. 2 Background 2.1 LAC considered the Mayor’s 2020 Vision: The Greatest city on Earth produced in 2013 and decided to provide a response to inform a proposed workshop involving the Culture and Planning Teams of the GLA and staff of Design Council CABE. The LAC response: Changing London: An adapting world city was produced and sent to partners in December 2013, in advance of the workshop. At present there has been no formal response from the GLA to that document. 2.2 The workshop was attended by 10 members of LAC, four members of EH staff (as facilitators), six members of GLA and three representatives from Design Council CABE. There were three objectives for the workshop: • • • For each party to gain a better understanding of strategic issues For each party to review and explore concerns with existing relationships For each party to identify joint areas of interest and better ways of working These objectives were to be met through presentations, facilitated breakout groups and plenary discussion. 1 LAC/GLA Workshop Report – PUBLIC 3 Workshop discussion 3.1 Set out below are the key points from each of the groups and the question they were addressing: Group 1: “How do we ensure Opportunity Area Frameworks respond to context?” • Much depends on context and whether the initiative is local or has come from central government. Need to get a balance between strategic and local initiatives and need to define opportunities. • Work with the locality- nurture it • Important to use Shaping the Neighbourhood guidance to ensure that OAFs retain what is distinctive about an area to be developed and Group discussed this in relation to Nine Elms and HS2 at Oldham Common. Group 2: “How do we approach the issue of building tall in London?” • Need for early involvement – at spatial development/design level. • Tension between viability and design – more critical approach needs to be taken to economic justification for tall buildings. • Greater attention needed to context and impact of tall buildings on immediate setting and urban realm. • Danger in being too prescriptive in attempts to control London’s skyline. Broad guidance is desirable, but each case needs to be judged on its own merits. Group 3: “How is the historic environment valued in the decision-making process?” • Agreed we already have a very complex and thorough system, but it needs to evolve: • skills are too compartmentalised and we need to ensure we work in a more efficient way to avoid duplication of effort • if we collaborate and share information more we can have debates earlier in the development process which will help to avoid cases escalating to senior level/call-in • need to review and prioritise resources to concentrate on where we make a difference • Need to evaluate the economic and heritage values at the same time • Need to simplify and combine guidance Agenda item 6: LAC 2014/4 Page 2 of 4 LAC/GLA Workshop Report – PUBLIC • Issues different between centre and outer London – a “tale of two cities” • explore possibility of secondments, sharing skills and resources – this would ensure better understanding of each other’s position • Decision-making process is too lengthy and we need to find better mechanisms to ensure we engage with communities and individuals within a reasonable timeframe but beware over consultation? Group 4: “How do we develop a compelling picture of London as a place?” • The Group focused not on ‘how’ but whether there is a need to develop a compelling picture of London as a place – particularly given the fact that the London Plan is meant to summarise what London is and what it should be. • Acknowledged there is a need for a framework approach in planning but also a need for flexibility and therefore we cannot be too prescriptive. • However, felt it was important to identify London’s key attributes and characteristics (i.e. the things that make London what it is) so that they are always taken into account in planning. These would include the river, villages, neighbourhoods, open spaces/parks and the immense cultural and social variety of London. • In addition to identifying the positive attributes that make London what it is, it is important also to identify negative characteristics so that these can be avoided in future planning (lessons to be learnt). PLENARY SESSION 3.2 Further discussion took place regarding whether there is a need to develop a compelling picture of London and how far the London Plan actually provides that picture or is in fact more a set of processes. 3.3 Stewart Murray made the point that the London Plan was a necessary means of encapsulating statutory requirements and existed to guide development rather than paint a picture of London. It also belonged to the Mayor so was subject to changing political priorities. The key would be to find a way to identify sustainable values and qualities that, hopefully, any politician would support. 3.4 Discussion was also extensive on balancing a prescriptive approach with flexibility particularly around the issue of tall buildings and the result that guidance usually resulted in developers meeting the guidance but not going beyond it, which could be unhelpful e.g. in housing standards. There was some agreement that it was necessary to achieve a better balance between well-intentioned guidelines and the need to judge individual cases on their own merits. CW commented on the difficulties in achieving consensus (e.g. Market Towers). NB noted that there was a need to take a more cautious approach to the degree of proportionality and the risks of getting it wrong when considering tall buildings cases. Agenda item 6: LAC 2014/4 Page 3 of 4 LAC/GLA Workshop Report – PUBLIC Next Steps 3.5 Stewart Murray suggested that the next step would be to create a mechanism for establishing a shared value system. He suggested that a strategic forum should be set up to meet two or three times annually which would: • • • • identify commonality and differences of approach how to deal with issues and cases at an early stage to avoid them escalating to a senior level/call-in how to form an alliance working towards the same end how to work together more efficiently (sharing staff etc) 4 Conclusions 4.1 The workshop appears to have been generally positively received and contributed to achieving two of the three objectives at least in part. The third objective - identification of joint areas of interest and future work- remains to be addressed. Following the event, letters have been sent to Stewart Murray about taking things forward both in terms of developing the alliance and also inviting GLA representation onto the LAC but nothing definite has emerged in reply. Staff will continue to press to ensure progress. Nigel Barker 0207 973 3488 24 January 2014 Agenda item 6: LAC 2014/4 Page 4 of 4 If you require an alternative accessible version of this document (for instance in audio, Braille or large print) please contact our Customer Services Department: Telephone: 0870 333 1181 Fax: 01793 414926 Textphone: 0800 015 0516 E-mail: [email protected]