This seminar involved some 45 participants coming from the Greater London Authority, Transport for London, London boroughs, central government, Sport England, London HE institutions, consultants/independent researchers, civic/community organisations, BPF, RICS, Planning Officers Society and the RTPI.

Introduction

Introducing the seminar as Chair, Alan Mace (LSE London) explained that it was part of an autumn-spring series[1], stimulated by dissatisfaction with how far the Mayoral planning system for London had actually fulfilled its intended strategic role.  Following the Covid-induced break in the 4-yearly cycle of London Plan-making, the idea was to reflect now on ways in which strategic weaknesses could be overcome when active Plan-making resumed after the Mayoral election.

The starting point was that: while

• the Spatial Development Strategy had to be evidently consistent with requirements of the statutory town planning system ; and provide appropriate guidance for boroughs working within that; it needed
• to be embedded in a set of ongoing processes, led by the Mayor, which are much more broadly conceived, if it is to be genuinely and effectively strategic.

The series started with a pair of (un-minuted) roundtables, bringing together a range of people with close experience (in various roles) of London-wide planning through the GLA era, to look at what could be learned  about:  remediable sources of weakness in the current process;  and new challenges from an uncertain environment or  aspirations for wider engagement in the process..

These produced rich discussions, some of which are reflected in postings on our dedicated blog series[2]. More issues were  opened-up than closed – and with inevitable differences of opinion. There was, however, a substantial consensus about the need for a step-change now in the process of Plan-making/debate, involving  four kinds of shift in the process:

• A stronger emphasis on understanding the key social/economic processes – beyond trend analysis – affecting the outcomes/problems the Plan is directed at, and the particular impacts of its provisions;
• Developing an initial strategic planning document, with a focus extending beyond statutory planning, in a form available for open debate – including by the London Assembly;
• Taking the monitoring function more seriously, to enable both learning by experience (on a continuing basis) and appropriate response to evolving and novel uncertainties – also in a form conducive to debate – including by the Assembly;
• Recognising the need, throughout the process, for interaction and negotiating relations with other powerful actors, both inside and outside London, public and private, to secure the best available future outcomes.

These were summarised in a blog prepared for this seminar[3] – and framed the agenda for the four sub-sessions, as reported below.  The intention of this event was to discuss each in a more focused  way than at the roundtables, drawing on a wider pool of experience and interested stakeholders, to further develop ideas about ways forward and obstacles to be overcome.

In the short period left before electoral purdah descended, a further pair of roundtables were to follow on particular aspects noted as requiring closer discussion;

• the form and content of a Preliminary Strategic Options Report to the Assembly, and
• how to deal with the Wider South East ramifications of many London Plan issues.

Building from a Firmer Understanding of the Key Processes Shaping Change.

The first theme, involving the need for a very much stronger analytic base of understanding of the functional systems being planned for/with, was introduced by Martin Crookston (independent consultant).  He drew particularly on his work (with Jonathan Reades) on the incidence, causes and effects of working from home (WFH) in various London business settings, as something with unclear  implications that could not  simply be expressed in terms of shocks/trends.

Other key examples which various people discussed included:

• coarse sectoral classifications of jobs (e.g. industrial, business service etc.), without reference to the actual activities involved (and their differing skill/location requirements, rewards, externalities etc.), and in relation to crude/bureaucratic “use types” for sites. There was general acknowledgement that the meanings of all of these had changed substantially since priorities for safeguarding some types of site had been shaped.       Though there were differences of view as to whether established categories needed re-examination or continued protection against particularistic pressures;
• land development and construction activities which despite the regulatory, promotional and enabling roles of London authorities were heavily dependent on private market forces and the dynamics of land/property markets, to which the plan-making process seemed to give no real attention. (During discussion a common tendency was noted to  reference to houses that “we” could build, though the scale of actual construction depended on private decision-making by a quite different combination of actors).
• in relation to both of these examples, though with wider application, the point was made that data recording and management in GLA were not made with an eye to analysis of processes, but to casework or meeting formal data requirements for bureaucratically specified procedures, (e.g. SHMA and SHLAA). And that richer data sources used for TfL project appraisal were not being deployed for causal analyses of development processes, either internally or via academic groups with modelling expertise.  A similar kind of (chicken and egg). point was made in relation to the abandonment of the GLA’s London Business Survey.

Introducing a Preliminary Strategic Options stage of the Plan for Assembly Debate

Discussion of the second theme was introduced by Jennifer Peters (Ealing LB and ex-GLA planner), reflecting particularly  on experience with and reactions to the last round of London Plan-making, notably in relation to housing targets and rejection of the realism of these at the Examination in Public (EiP).  This resonated with two of the arguments underlying the proposal to institute a Strategic Options Stage, with the Assembly playing a focal role in that – namely that a wider range of options and scenarios needed open discussion  in the city, not simply one favoured by the Mayor and planning norms, and that on big issues such discussion such discussion needed to be very much earlier than the EiP, when there was very much more scope for adaptation, investigation and second thoughts.

Though the topic had moved on, much of the discussion actually reverted to issues about the (in)adequacy of the cause-effect knowledge stock which a strategic review stage would require. Contributions from several of those with GLA experience as planners or economists suggested that data and trends were seen as more important, and “useful in their simplicity of communication” than empirical analyses. . And others observed that there seemed little appetite within the GLA for asking research questions, or designing data systems so as to facilitate analysis. Though, there were failures on both sides, with the research community also failing to engage effectively with GLA professionals.

The other perceived constraint, identified in the introduction, was that of unquestionable Mayoral manifesto commitments – notably Sadiq Khan’s 2016 promise to oppose development on the Green Belt.  The point was made that officers clearly could not work against that.   However, it was argued that they could/should have been commissioning work to understand what difference that would make to housing supply, and what other means could be deployed to secure the substantial additions to the housing stock which were also promised. None of this had actually been publically discussed, since all Mayoral candidates had simply expressed the same view about this matter.

It was recognised that having an intermediate stage, maybe one third of the way through the cycle, considering options that would not be pursued, would involve more work (and time). But it would not involve the detailed data processing and site evaluations of the main stage, on which there could usefully be continuing work not tied to the rhythms of producing one-off versions of the Plan.

Without the detail required of the final draft Plan, a strategic options document could be communicated and debated much more widely and effectively across London. It was noted that initially (before the Localism Act) a version of the Plan had gone to the Assembly before public consultation, and an options report could get them back into the process, on a review basis at an earlier stage.

As a concept at least there appeared to be wide support for an innovation of this kind, for both the challenges and opportunities it was seen to present.

Taking Monitoring Seriously as a Vehicle for Learning

In the earlier events, highlighting of the need to more systematically look back at the relation between Plan forecasts/targets and outcomes had partly reflected a frustration with the limited and delayed way in which Mayors has fulfilled their statutory monitoring obligations – and the Assembly’s limited response to missed targets. But, perhaps more, a view that monitoring was a necessary and positive element of the planning cycle, as a basis for learning to do better and respond faster to change – not as a hurdle to be passed.  And as a means of putting the strategic planning process on a more continuing footing, in a world where circumstances and understandings changed – rather than a discrete sequence of four yearly plan-making/examining/reporting cycles

Discussion of his  theme was introduced by Alexander Jan (independent consultant/Westminster Property Association) drawing on a range of experiences. Distinguishing between motives for monitoring – accountability in relation to expressed priorities, and effectiveness in relation to what’s worked/ may need to be changed – and recognising confounding factors, both external and governmental. He saw the statutory annual monitoring report with its key indicators as a treasure trove, and recognised a real strengthening of analytic capacity with the GLA as compared to GLC. This could be used to create policies which were more responsive to change, maybe designed with threshold responses, though with dangers if the basis of understanding for these was unclear.

Other participants were much more critical of the way monitoring was currently used – some because of delays in publication of a limited set of indicators chosen by the Mayor, the lack of critical discussion/follow-up of what they really showed – or the lack of independence of this process. One person with substantial experience in a regulated industry argued strongly that, in order to work,  monitoring is necessary : by an independently appointed body; completely transparent about the research it does; and able to publish reports when and how it wants.

As others spelled out, this was clearly not at all what has normally happened  with the Plan.  Publication of the monitoring report had been increasingly delayed, numbers of indicators were reduced (and could be dropped if seen as likely to present problems). And the planning committee had never gone through the report at all critically – or achieved any substantial debate on the half of the targets that were not being met (in some cases never). The point was made that passing the monitoring function to an independent body would only work – in the sense of inducing changes in policy and agencies behaviour – if those agencies (including the Mayor) had reasons to “buy into” the process.

Another point made involved the need to define targets more directly in relation to sets of outcomes of genuine political and social concern – the specific example being overall ‘housing affordability’, or the affordable housing stock, as distinct from indicators relating to specific categories of affordable, social/council rent that are bureaucratically registered. This implied some causal analyses, not just counting.

A broader version of that argument was made in terms of a fundamental need for monitoring to encompass a causal “story” about the relation between what had been observed during a recent period (in terms of actions/outcomes), the longer term strategy and particular short-term disturbances – with a critical review of the need to understand/learn more about how the city functions, as well as of the appropriateness of instruments and targets.

Negotiation, Collaboration and Deal-Making

This last major theme, from the autumn roundtables, differed from the first three, all of which were concerned with highlighting/strengthening (what should be) standard activities of research , response design, and evaluation within a textbook kind of rational planning framework.  Rather it emphasised that – within a complex metropolitan region where everything and every place was connected  in uneven, indirect and qualitatively variable ways, with arrays of powerful actors  who weren’t neatly embedded in  a hierarchical structure – more uneven and opportunistic processes of deal-making could be crucial to making the system work efficiently, fairly and sustainably

Introducing the final theme, Duncan Bowie (UCL planning academic, ex-GLA) drew particularly on his continuing experience chairing a network to promote stronger relations between those engaged in London and Wider South East development planning.  Despite advocacy of closer collaboration by inspectors at examinations of the London Plan, statutory basis for this is weak, and without a duty to collaborate it was unclear how the issue of matching housing  capacity/shortage across  adjacent areas was meant to be addressed. And there had been a breakdown in discussion of such strategic spatial planning issues.  The Mayor had disengaged, home county authorities were struggling to meet their own housing targets and ministers were hesitant to get involved. But underperformance was so significant that fundamental review was needed

He suggested that reactivating wider engagement now needed to involve the London Assembly,  starting from recognition that the Plan approach has led to substantial under-delivery of (affordable) housing, and looking more broadly at a whole range of spatial development options for areas in the Wider South East. And, also, at the supports required for these in terms of all kinds of infrastructure and arrangements for their funding .

In his view this implied the need for a regional body, with central government taking the lead, to ensure that spatial planning works, since London cannot be treated as an island.

Others responded with some shock to this conclusion, which was noted as “identifying more than one big black hole”, including the implications for power and water supply if a mayor aspired both to significant London growth and greening of the vehicle fleet.

There was also some scepticism about the harking-back to eras of South East “regional planning” which had either failed to translate from paper to real shifts in locational patterns of infrastructure investment, or (as with new/expanded towns programmes) had contributed only marginally to the outward shifts in population/housing.  Rather than this top-down approach (or spontaneous bottom-up collaboration) it was suggested that effective responses would have to start in a piecemeal way from a middle level, with coalitions of complementary interests in related places (e.g. growth corridors) and strategic “deals” as to how growth could be organised for mutual (as well as wider) benefit – given appropriate leadership and enablers.

In a somewhat similar (pragmatic) vein it was suggested  – for projects which might be wholly within London or extending beyond- that cash-strapped public transport bodies (notably TfL) could , with some land assembly powers,   act as development agents to make things happen in opportunity areas around their facilities, borrowing examples from elsewhere to tap into private investment.

The point was also made that this kind of strategic geographic thinking needed to extend beyond the scope of formal town planning to encompass a range of transport, housing and other issues in the Mayor’s portfolio – and the question whether London growth was actually a good thing.

Conclusion

In concluding what had been a lively, wide-ranging sand generally positive session, with some evident consensus about desirable/needed direction of change, Alan Mace (as Chair) made a set of points, relating to:

• the tension between the complexity of issues/procedures and the need for simplification and focus to get meaningful engagement: and
• the importance, in that context of the timing of decision points within the cycle of work on and with the London Plan.

[1] Organised by LSE London, with collaboration in this section from London Councils

[2] https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lselondon/roundtables-2023/

[3] https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lselondon/setting-an-agenda-for-the-february-2024-seminar-on-making-the-london-plan-more-strategic/