Can the planning system solve for “beautiful buildings” whilst also applying increasingly complex viability tests? I remain unconvinced and my take is we’re getting ourselves into a pickle.
Interventions by the Secretary State in the case of Berkeley’s Crane Valley scheme appear arbitrary and heavy handed. More so where an LPA has approved the scheme. If there is a local consent, why make more work for everyone. It once again highlights the dysfunctionality of the planning system.
This national posturing about beauty also puts developers into conflict with London policy in the latest GLA consultation round on viability assessments. Simon and the City has produced a good summary. City Hall wants a more prescriptive approach and is clear that development costs need to be comprehensively assessed. Not my words:
4.3.6 LPAs are strongly encouraged to use cost consultants to rigorously assess scheme proposals and verify whether costs are appropriate, taking into account pricing, quantities, specification and assumed development values. Consideration should also be given to scheme design and programme, and whether development costs could be reduced as part of a value-engineering or cost-reduction exercise. Cost-consultancy advice provided to LPAs should also include benchmarking against costs of comparable schemes and should check that the cost plan submitted is based on correct floor area information.
So how do you value engineer a scheme at Stage C and also make sure its beautiful enough for Michael Gove. Who knows. I have only been doing this for ten or so years and I am as bemused as everyone else trying to make sense of the tensions and complexities of planning in this country.
Whilst the Mayor’s team are not absolute, there is an increasingly emphasis in planning policy at driving down development costs at an early stage. I don’t think this can work, property development evolves through the cycle and trying to capture this early means we capture nothing at all.
Several years ago, working with Lichfield Planning we analysed the top issues facing small and medium-sized sites in London. Top of the planning considerations was viability. Design was up there but had clearly fallen behind in the pack as planning evolves into a dry numbers exercise as to who could build cheapest. I wonder where design would sit now with this new guidance. Solving for beauty is proving tricky.
