May 2011 Archives

The UKR Forum Briefings every two weeks are conducted by Dr Evans strictly under the Chatham House rule, so I'm not supposed to attribute hilarious events that transpire at our breakfasts to any particular individuals. And this is a shame. I am the worst ever gossip, as you know, and it does rather cramp my style.

I am not quite clear what Chatham House would make of the case where alter-egos are in attendance, which is a perplexing twist. So I am hoping that I am not out of order for reporting we had a simply excellent event the other day; chief planning officer Peter Wynne Rees was certainly in attendance, despite his very busy week, but the star of the show turned out to be Rocky Strong, an "angry planner", who hadn't actually been invited, but who certainly graced us by his presence. And we had a good canter around what is good and bad, what is worth preserving and what not, in our benighted planning system.

Just to reinforce what Frances Salway was saying last week about buoyant levels of investment currently experienced in London, my friends over at Farebrother have sent me their mightily technical and boffinish report. Thanks guys, I'm not quite sure who you think I am, but I was glad to receive it. Naturally I couldn't quite get my head around all of it (well, nought past the summary really), but the main point is that it shows office take-up in Midtown to be at its highest in four years, set to inexorably drive Midtown rents upwards.
 
Farebrother says Midtown office take-up rose 8% in the 4th quarter of 2010, to 700,000 sq ft (its highest level since the 4th quarter of 2006), so that can't be bad. On the supply side, there was a significant reduction in offices available for immediate occupation, with availability falling 11% from 2.75 to 2.4m sq ft. That has to be a green shoot in anyone's book. And it just goes to show what we in UKR are saying: that London is recovering well, and that scarce public resources (and policy interventions) need to be directed elsewhere in the country.
 

We gave evidence last night at the CLG Select Committee Inquiry into Regeneration. I say "we", but, of course, I sent in Dr Evans (now, be aware, this isn't cowardice, it is playing to strengths, which I think you'll agree is an excellent ability in any manager). The other day he (Dr Evans) was accused - by Chris Brown, no less - of being "Jackie's brain," which is downright insulting really (but probably pretty accurate). His retort was "well, I'm certainly not her body", which was nearly as rude.
 
We were pleased to be asked to appear at the Select Committee, which started two weeks ago and continues throughout June. Inevitably, differences of view are emerging. And, blimey, there are a lot of old lags in the game! Dr Evans has nobly summarised some of the main submissions from some national and other bodies for the UKR Forum Library (and if you want a copy, you'll need to join the UKR Forum so ner). It will be interesting to see how these various views play out, and how far they influence government.
 

It's a Big Week for the City!  Fresh on the hot news that the City of London Corporation has put a major development site (which has consent for 87,000 sq ft of offices and 13,000 sq ft of shops) near St Paul's Cathedral up for sale, after striking a ground-breaking deal with Irish developer Menolly, we now learn that the corporation has written to developers and business leaders asking for help in opposing the government's proposals to scrap planning rules for office-to-residential conversions.
And if it doesn't rain, it damn well pours, since the recommendation on the listing of Broadgate, in the City, is expected to be made to the government, also this very week. British Land is on record as saying it (listing) would be a "terrible signal, given concerns...about London being open for business". The move could "jeopardise £1bn of investment in the capital", it says.  Well, I think this is a risk worth taking in this particular case (see blog 20 April), but will be agog to see what transpires.

Scrambled around to the Countrywide/Hamptons Seminar at the National Property Showcase in the Millennium Hotel, Grosvenor Square, W1, first thing this morning. As with most working mums, I am always a little challenged to get to get these breakfast events (made so much worse for me, of course, due to my own unique disorganisation factor - I could win awards you know), and I'm always so very glad that I did.  
 
The ever-urbane Grenville Turner, CEO of Countrywide, was in the chair, of course (he is universally described as "sensational", and you can see why), and speakers included my good mate Adam Challis, head of research for Hamptons International (who gave us a sparkling canter around the state of the residential market), followed by the reliably humorous Nigel Stockport, director of financial services for Countrywide, and Jackie Bennett OBE, head of policy for the Council for Mortgage Lenders. There are green shoots you know, it's official. These last pair did a great double act, and left us with room for, at least some, optimism in the mortgage market.
 

Scrupulous followers of this blog (and yes, there are some - nearly 3,000 of you, I understand from my NBF at EG) will have seen that Alex Kendall has written to say that there is a bit of a barney breaking out (yet again) in the planning community, with the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) and the Council for Protection for Rural England (CPRE), among others, up in arms about changes to s70 of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act where she says "it seems that 'cash for sprawl' is the driving dynamic for the British Planning system".

She follows this up with a somewhat - uh - intemperate statement: "There is another name for selling favours for money!" This makes me smile. Gawd love her, since she always makes me look shy and retiring.  And she's been trying to bring this to my attention for some time.
 
And, indeed, it is widely reported that the RTPI  is "appalled" (another strong word) at the idea of a "cash for permissions measure" that could arise as, apparently, communities secretary Eric Pickles has taken the "controversial" step of tabling an amendment to the Localism Bill that would allow councils to accept government money for saying "yes" to development.   

Had a very nice jar in the Iron Duke in Avery Row the other evening. I was out with Paul Clark (now new divisional director of development at Capita Symonds  - and lucky them to get HIM!) and dear old Mark Davey of Future City (looking somewhat louche in his linen open-neck shirt; I think he sometimes imagines he's an architect). We were having a good-natured spat about what to do to make the ground floors in residential developments in godforsaken parts of the city work. As you do.  

And then, of course (there are certain things in this life on which you can depend) we progressed on to what to do about the high street. Clarky started banging on about Fonthill Street, the fashion hub in Finsbury Park, near his drum, claiming that the concentration of small wholesale outlets had come about by happenstance.

"Ho no!" boomed I. "That was the product of a government initiative called a local collaborative partnership (LCP), which was a small-scale DoE programme, as perpetrated by the government in the mid 1980s. And the reason I know that is because I worked on its sister project, called Docklands Skillnet at the same time."

This morning's EGi tells us that the government has called on Mary Portas, "queen of shops", to advise it on saving embattled high streets. BIS (the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills) has said it "would announce more details shortly about its commitment to introduce a package of measures to support town centres".

Well jolly good call, I reckon. You won't find many of us in the regeneration sector who don't adore Ms Portas (actually, these days, you won't find many of us in the regeneration sector at all. Full stop. But that's another story altogether). We regeneration types seriously worship Mary Portas for her "tough love" and the fact that she clearly cares about the independents. So much so that my team asked her to deliver a keynote address for one of our conferences last year. Sadly she couldn't do it, due to her filming schedule, but her office was thoroughly charming about it all, and they seemed to really care.

So we just love her. And, if she'll accept the government challenge, we think this will be an inspired appointment by BIS. And yet, and yet, and yet (sorry, Cassandra moment looming)... she cannot do it on her own...

I spent a wonderful afternoon in the North East of England yesterday with my good friend and all-round urban regeneration guru, Alan J Smith of Red Box Design. There are some potent forces at work in the North East, and it really is a joy to see what can be achieved with a bit of imagination and creativity. 
 
A joint venture between Galliford Try and Home Group has won a £347m contract to regenerate Gateshead. The consortium is to call itself "Evolution Gateshead", as it embarks upon one of the UK's largest residential regeneration programmes. Red Box Design is named as one of the architects to the scheme and, frankly, nobody is better to do sensitive infill housing projects, stitching together the urban fabric for the good of the folk of Gateshead.

Galliford Try and Home Group are forming a regeneration partnership with Gateshead council to build 2,400 houses for affordable tenures and private sale, together with community facilities, across 19 sites in Gateshead. All homes are pledged to achieve level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes and will exceed Homes and Communities Agency space standards. Work is due to start later this year, with the development programme phased to complete by 2026. These guys make it sound so easy, but these things are always fraught, and my hearty congratulations to them for their style and approach (and for choosing an excellent architect and master planning adviser).

So, the election results show the coalition government creaking a little, one year on. But its most serious point of coalescence seems to be around the cuts and, of course, the other side of that coin, the devolving of power to real people; the necessary shrinking of "big government" through localism. You can't have one without the other, you see. There must be some reward for the pain. And regular readers of this blog will know I am a firm supporter of localism. But, sadly, the road to radical reform was never an easy path...

For some time (months now) I have been warning that localism will not apply in London. What is sauce for the goose, I've been saying, will not be sauce for the gander. And the brave, bold experiment of the coalition government (to be grown up enough to trust its population) will only pertain outside the M25, where, sadly, the Treasury still secretly believes nothing much matters anyway.

Now we have solid evidence to support my suspicions: Inside Housing last week reported that Stephen Greenhalgh, the larger-than-life Conservative leader of Hammersmith and Fulham council has asked ministers "to water down proposals to give tenants the right to take over the ownership of their estates, so that a major redevelopment project can go ahead".

IH is, of course, talking about CapCo's Earls Court project which would involve the demolition of the Gibbs Green and West Kensington estates unless, that is, residents groups are able to make use of that proposed right to take ownership by way of a stock transfer under Section 34A of the 1985 Housing Act. I've reported on this sorry tale before (blog 17 January 2011). And now it has also been picked up by the ever vigilant Dave Hill in the Guardian.

Section 34A was introduced by the previous administration, but did not come into force because the necessary accompanying regulations were not put in place. But the present government has stated its firm intention to complete the job, in line with its localism agenda.

Now a response to an FOI request from Inside Housing reveals that Stephen Greenhalgh e-mailed CLG ministers Greg Clark and Grant Shapps back in January to ask that "tests" be applied before tenant-led transfers are approved in "regeneration areas". The e-mail reads: "We believe it is wrong to allow regulations on stock transfer to apply without these wider benefit tests in these 'opportunity areas' as an unintended consequence could be to impede regeneration in those very areas already defined as needing major economic growths, jobs and homes."

I appreciate that the press is dominated by the news about Osama Bin Laden (and of course the dreary entrails of The Wedding) but you might be forgiven for thinking that everything else had ground to a complete halt, despite the various elections today.  

Even in the trade press.  The top story in Planning Magazine is headlined "The Inspectorate declares the London Plan 'sound'", and in it the lovely Mike Donnelly (a fine reporter who truly does his level best) attempts to construct a story out of the (somewhat asinine, to say the least) findings of the public examination.  

Now, as Dr Evans commented yesterday with uncharacteristic glee, if the Inspectorate had declared the London Plan "unsound", that would have been news. But hey - Simon Milton's legacy to our capital city is nothing if not a demonstrably sound document; it may be a bit (well, a lot) longer than it needs to be (it is, after all, a political document) but it does everything it can to be clear and to eliminate uncertainty.  And the received wisdom is that it is certainly one of many things that London has going for it, in stark contrast to the rest of the country.

EGi this past weekend reports that bookies could be the next chunk of the high street retail market to suffer heavy closures because of online competition.  Britain has 8,500 betting shops, which have been good at adapting to market changes (I seem to remember a wholesale clean-up about 25 years ago - not, I hasten to add, that I would ever frequent such places, of course).

But it remains to be seen whether they can adapt again, and quickly enough, in order to continue to prosper. Not that your bookies add much to the animation of the streetscape - they're nearly as boring to look at as banks, but they are an active usage and we should take the threat against them seriously.

Harbingers of doom have warned of "a death knell" for the high street since the 1980s, when out-of-town shopping took hold, and the same people are now warning of the "final nail" being delivered by on-line shopping.  And yet, the picture is mixed and confused.