June 2010 Archives

I was having lunch yesterday with the lovely Peter Mathias of Holder Mathias, the refreshingly down-to-earth principal of that well known architectural practice, based in Cardiff and London.

Over the last couple of years, Peter has formed a radical alliance with the great Piers Gough and I'm thrilled to report that they are back on the scene in various northern city centre schemes, notably Barnsley. 

"Oh", says Peter to me (because he's bossy), "why don't you (BURA) offer an understanding of surveying for non-surveyors (this, to match our ever-popular Planning for Non-Planners courses).

Well, I was pleased to say that we were already doing this (ha ha) in the shape of our Supporting Regeneration Delivery course being held on 16 July 2010 in central London (hosted by our mates at McGrigors LLP).

We have been billing it as "the perfect introduction for public sector employees who need to engage with the development industry including those who work in regeneration, housing, planning, property, inward investment, city/area development, economic development, policy and strategy" (this is really because we're very preoccupied with public sector-private sector partnerships).

Had a fascinating trip to Harrogate last week to attend the Chartered Institute of Housing event.

In deference to New World, I eschewed the grand hotels and stayed in a delightful B&B overlooking the Valley Gardens (I have never in my life seen such superbly maintained public realm).

You can't help but be knocked sideways by beautiful Harrogate,  but I confess I was a bit bemused by the event and the exhibition.

It all felt a bit other-worldly really, and I now understand why people frequently describe the (social housing) sector as being in "a bubble". I'm glad I went though. It was An Education.

I was there to speak at a (brilliantly crafted) fringe seminar organised by PRP Architects concerning the return of power to the local authorities. A timely subject it has to be said; and what a joy Andy Von Bradsky and his team at PRP are! Responsive and adaptable and clever.

It's a shame the LGA haven't asked them to transfer that seminar down to their Annual Conference in Bournemouth next week: it was a textured examination of a complex subject.

In the shift of the tectonic plates of power, however, certain housing precepts will need to be examined hard I reckon, notably "tenancy for life" which was brought up (in a rather positive light) at the seminar.

I was wrong! The word "regeneration" did make an appearance in the Budget Statement in the part on Local Economic Partnerships (LEP). Para 1.89 to be precise. Hurrah!

And there was a definite Heseltinian tinge here on planning zones. So far so good.

At a meeting at CLG yesterday it was confirmed that the LEPs would be encouraged, bottom up. They might be locality based or they might be single issue based.

There's no promise of any money but the subtext is this: if you are delivering measurable tangible benefits on the ground and this can be demonstrated (particularly in the area of jobs) then you can expect rewards (there's another sub text which is this: those parts of the country that are overrun with agencies, dare I say the Thames Gateway or Merseyside for example, should use this move to LEPs to radically streamline their sub-regional infrastructure, cutting costs if possible).

A tougher nut to crack will be "the commitment that all parts of the UK benefit from economic growth" and, in particular, the creation of the regional growth fund (para 1.87) "to help areas and communities particularly affected by reductions in public spending make the transition to private sector-led growth and prosperity".

I always hate Budget day. And it's worse when you represent a sector that's virtually gone invisible of late.

We spent all morning repeating the mantra "BURA calls for a single simple budget supporting local plans" and, blow me down, it may be that that is what we've got (alternatively, and highly likely though, is that I'm missing something!).

And sure enough, no mention of the words "regeneration" or even "renewal" but you get used to that.

So, the big announcement is that VAT is to rise to 20% from 4 January next year. A simple enough sum, even for me to do.

But why so little: why not 25%? I am advised that rises in VAT adversely affect the less well off but I have to say that always seems counter intuitive to me; had it been me I'd have put it up to 25% or even 30%.

As I told the kidult this morning, I'd have taxed her expenditure on shoes to the hilt. We're in the do-do after all.

And I'd have hammered the booze and the fags some more (I may be a drinker and I may once have been a smoker but I take the view that each is/was my own call and each is fair game for tax levies).

I gatecrashed the Dexter Moren Associates party at the Building Centre the other evening.

I was in a meeting with some people who were going on to it and I just decided to come along for the ride. They didn't mind a bit and in fact Dexter seemed quite pleased to see me (rather reminded me of being a student actually) and nice to see the lovely Adrian Cole from Colin Buchanan and Partners.

And, of course, it enabled Ross Sturley to pose the second shot in his art installation series "Sadek Handbags besiege Architectural Models".

The last one at MIPIM (see blog 30 March) was a complete accident (later billed in the EG diary to the effect of "Gucci handbag rivals Gherkin and Cheese Grater").

This caused one of my mother's rather posher friends some very real consternation: having studied the photograph in the magazine for some time, she eventually expostulated in heartfelt indignation "But this handbag is a Furla!". I guess you have to get your priorities straight in this life).

This latter photograph is contrived of course (and, Jane, before you get exercised, the black handbag is an Osprey, bought cheap in the sale, naturally).

And we do intend to do this all round the country over the next few months. Expect a series of 10. Or 12, perhaps. May have to borrow some handbags.

Anyway, it was a bit of a diversion away from the deficit and the cuts.

I am still a little bewildered by last week's offensive from the Coalition against "garden grabbing", whereby gardens are to be taken out of the brownfield land category of planning guidance in a bid to strengthen councils' ability to refuse permissions. I thought if I left it for a bit to mull over then it would become clearer, but it really hasn't.

According to decentralisation minister Greg Clark, gardens will no longer appear in the same "previously developed land" grouping as derelict factories and disused railway sidings, giving councils more power to refuse unwanted residential development in gardens.

This from the Conservative and Liberal Democrats, who hold our green fields and - more to the point - our Green Belt most dearly to their hearts.

Well, just for a moment, let's put to one side that many people in urban areas hugely support intensification of development (today's photo shows a good example of that) and, more to the point, that this sort of development has accounted for something like 25% of all homes built over the last few years.

And call me picky if you like, but don't local planning authorities already have more than enough existing policy to allow councils to manage back garden development and avoid town cramming if they so choose? Isn't it inherently anti-localist to dictate to local authorities what is right for their localities?

Close readers of this blog will know I am a huge fan of Greg Clark, the Minister of State, but I have to say I think I would have chosen a rather different topic for my first foray into a seminal announcement on localism.

Rather than introduce yet more top-down policy, wouldn't it have been better to have issued guidance in best practice for councils to use their existing powers to protect the character of residential neighbourhoods and maximise their ability to protect green space?

(Incidentally, I do get the point, announced simultaneously, about the scrapping of the minimum density target of 30 homes per hectare - which is of course entirely commensurate with localism).

Until this most recent announcement I have conveniently viewed the issue of "garden grabbing" as separate from infill development (see blog on 23 Feb) but I'm afraid this won't do for much longer.

I had a welcome break from the gloom and the cuts yesterday to attend an amazing event.

It was Barry Winfield's leaving lunch from Broadgate Estates, held at the Grocers Hall in the City. And a most elegant affair it was too.

Peter Wynne Rees and Peter Bennett from the City were there, of course, as was Archie Galloway (aka "the Scottish Connection") and other grandees, Sir Michael Oliver, Fergus Low and Paul Lewis.

The "naughty corner" (me and Tony Burchett in the main) were running a book as to which of the Knights of the Realm (Stuart Lipton or John Ritblat) would manage to turn up latest but in fact the two "Sirs" turned up almost simultaneously on time leaving Nick Bates, now at Land Sec of course, to pick up the wooden spoon for tardiness.

(Tony Burchett is very naughty indeed: at one point, when I was carping at Peter Rogers for being so very slim at ...uh... a certain age, Tony expostulated "Peter! You are as fit as a butcher's dog!". Well, the Ever-Urbane Pierre looked rather shocked by this. Although not displeased at all.)

 A very sumptuous and hugely enjoyable lunch was enjoyed by all, notwithstanding the slightly disorientating effect of Barry and his team changing tables between courses (Barry himself was whirling around like a Dervish naturally).

And then the speeches: Barry made a characteristically long opening address but then, in a moment of highly endearing self awareness, gave over the floor to a wonderful light opera singer, Bob, who then paid tribute to all of those who had been part of Barry's career in a purpose-written (by Barry of course) 33 verse ditty and we all sang-along to the chorus. This was, mercifully, rather shorter than it sounds. In fact it was terrific fun.  

BURA launched its new initiative BURA Connect in London on 21st May to great acclaim. BURA Connect is the new BURA service matching talent with opportunity.

And it's just as well we're ahead of the game really, since the predicted meltdown in the regeneration sector has already begun in earnest.

Last Wednesday it was announced that Hull Forward will close, as Yorkshire Forward and the HCA "reluctantly confirmed that there will be no funding towards the running...beyond 30 September following significant public sector funding cuts across the country".

I guess, if you rely on cocktail funding (as all the URCs, like Hull Forward, do), there is likely to be a domino effect in such situations and, sure enough, as soon as the HCA and the RDA had declared their position then Hull council indicated that they would need to follow suit. So, full closure is expected by the end of the calendar year.

Was just at a rather divine lunch yesterday with Dan Labbad over at Lend Lease's new (quite pukka) temporary billet in New Broad Street.

This was attended by various luminaries, including the intellectual powerhouse that is Paul Finch (and the most wonderful banker, Brendan Jarvis, MD of Barclays Capital, who kept talking about "relationship banking" - what a joy! Ooh I think I seriously am in love).

We didn't once mention "garden grabbing" but we did try another foray into alliteration with "Lend Lease localism".

There is - seriously - a bit of an anti-planning feeling in the air. I'm not imagining this I promise, it is pretty pervasive and it is a bit of a worry.

Finchy started talking about getting things "out of planning [the planning process] wherever possible" and suggested we should allow office stock in town centres to be converted to residential, without the need for a planning permission, simply using Building Regs.

He said "that might only take two weeks". Well! You can imagine how much I thrilled to this idea, chiming as it does with my other thesis about converting void retail stock to residential (see blog 2 June). And contributing splendidly, as it does, to providing yet another structural solution to the problem of irreversible long term decline in our high streets.

It is very validating for me that so many ex senior civil servants (grey hairs all, worthy of so much respect) come onto this blog.

As the familiar breeds contempt, I don't count Dr Evans (although by rights, I should), but I am thrilled, in particular, to receive the attention of Michael Bach (the technical expert behind John Gummer's PPG6, aka the most popular planning policy in history) and Norman Perry (the redoubtable former Chief Executive of the Housing Corporation). They both come on with friendly suggestions and ideas, and I am extremely grateful. 

My old mentor, the late great Geoff Marsh was, of course, a civil servant himself at one time (not that I think he was a natural, I have to say).

And I can't help feeling he would have rather enjoyed the seismic shifts in the economy since 2008 and all the latest political upheaval this last few weeks.

There's nothing Geoff liked so much as chaos, really. And I find myself very much wishing very badly that he was here. 

So it was rather wonderful that the aforementioned Michael Bach (also a lifelong friend of Geoffrey's) has brought to my attention an award-winning scheme of 22 homes by our other mutual friend, dear old Marc Vlessing at Pocket.

The scheme, fitted into a small infill site, is named Geoff Marsh Court in honour of our old mucker and is located in his home borough of Camden.

How fitting that, in more-for-less Britain, Mr Vlessing continues to thrive with his niche market of tiny urban flats for professionals. Blimey, it's nearly a metaphor!

I didn't mean to upset the RTPI.

I am actually an admirer of that august institution, soon to be almost 100 years old! And I particularly admire the formidable women there (I've still never met Leonora Rozee, but I continually dine out on her beautifully constructed quotes).

And I have to say that if we were starting with a blank sheet of paper then I would agree that we should "work with what we've got, a system that, with a little imagination and leadership, is capable of delivering the new government's agenda, rather than going for more major reform, which most observers agree will lead to a period of uncertainty that will be harmful to the economy and the delivery of much-needed housing and infrastructure". The problem is this, very simply: we are not starting with a blank sheet of paper.

As Alex Kendall puts it (in her inimitable shy and retiring manner), "the enemy has been elected to government". Deal with it.

The other night at the CLG Reception, Eric Pickles, when introducing his ministerial team, said about one colleague (no prizes for guessing): "His job is not all joy you know, he's got some pain in there - he's responsible for Planning".

And, in that one throwaway quip, you have the distillation of the problem: the new government does not like Planning. And the new government does not like Planning because, in the main, the British public does not like Planning. Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings, guys, really sorry. But there it is.

Was delighted to be included in the great 'n' good at the CLG Reception last night. It was chock full of senior local government types and serious middle-aged women in sandals and rather wild elderly clerics. Very English really. 

How extraordinarily kind of a certain civil servant to remember to include the gobby regeneration girlie! In the old days, I used to always have my nose pressed to the window; now I'm part of the establishment. Strange feeling.

Well, it was certainly a warm old night. Eric Pickles made a great and rather funny speech (and mercifully short, since it was hot, and we were standing, and the old boy next to me looked seriously wobbly on his stick). 

The secretary of state has banished the word "stakeholder" since he says that every UK citizen has a stake in their community, so it is meaningless. 

He said the only stakeholder he recognises is that Van Helsing bloke who goes around vanquishing vampires. Bravo to that, I think. He favours the word "partner" apparently.

I just do not understand how the planning debate is playing out. I'm trying to read around the subject but I am seriously struggling to get to grips with it. I have as many misgivings about "Open Source Planning" as the next person, but every political instinct I have would suggest to me that the best way for the planning lobby to disport themselves would be to work with "Open Source", or at least appear to, whilst quietly getting on with being technically proficient at what they do. That is, populate "Open Source Planning" with some workable planning sense from underneath the policy. Or if that's too devious, why don't the planning mob get their act together and offer a constructive alternative?

But I just don't get what the RTPI is doing, with support from the POS, with their fight-them-on-the-beaches approach. Everyone seems to be thrashing around. And now the TCPA have jumped on the bandwagon! Far be it from me to call anyone hysterical (pots, kettles, I know) but claims that "abolishing regional planning will destroy a valuable mechanism for making essential strategic investment decisions" and that the proposed reforms "could have potentially devastating impacts on our economy, on our communities and on our environment" do make me rather reach for the smelling salts.

We in BURA spend a lot of time and energy developing "bottom up" strategies to enable local partnerships to undertake the small projects in the fine grain of our built environment; the projects which may not cost much but would make a serious difference to people's lives. This is the expertise that we believe we can tip in when the new government tries to breathe life into "localism" and "Big Society". We walk the walk. And have been doing so for 20 years.

We also, necessarily, spend a lot of time thinking about new strategies for our high streets, which are looking sadder and sadder as the aftermath of this recession bites (experience from the last recession tells us that we face at least another five years of decline in the high street. And new thinking indicates that this could well be a permanent condition). And, in this, we are ably abetted by Dr Peter Damesick, Head of UK Research for CBRE.

We in BURA are THRILLED about David Cameron's speech on Friday about assigning ministers and MPs to key cities. Of course, the speech was all framed in terms of the economy - but what was great about it was the implicit recognition that to turn an economy around needs a full frontal attack on social, physical and community well-being.

Like folk wandering off the desert into an oasis, we are salved. We soooo welcome the Prime Minister's commitment to rebalancing the economy, to "using public-private, central-local partnerships and assigning Ministers to key cities". 

We particularly like the "government must get out of the way where it is inhibiting enterprise and it's got to get active in those areas where it is needed" part and the bit that says "a crucial part of our coalition strategy for growth - which is to rebalance our economy".

"Rebalance" is a good word. And fine by us, if that is now the code and jargon. We still insist that what it means is caring more for the places that need most help. So we are really pleased. And pleased too with the analysis that lies behind this speech, it is clearly not sustainable for our economy to be so heavily reliant on just a few industries and a few - very few - regions and sub-regions that work, notably London and the South East. And we have been saying so for some time (well, 20 years I guess).