Have your say https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/crossrail/2

Respondents will be asked if they support the principle of a new route connecting some of the most deprived parts of north east London to the some of the most prosperous in the south west. They will also be asked for their preference between the Metro option – an underground tunnel from Wimbledon to Alexandra Palace – or the Regional option – a combined over/under ground service from Surrey all the way through south west, central, and north east London to Hertfordshire.

I am very worried about this policy. As chair of the London Assembly Planning Committee, I heard at our March meeting that granting office-to-residential permitted development rights will usher in a free-for-all of unmanaged conversions, with local councils and local people losing all control over which office space is lost and where it’s lost from. A range of experts expressed alarm at the threat to jobs, particularly in start-ups and SMEs that rely on the sort of marginal premises that will become most at risk of conversion. Even where conversion doesn’t happen, the hope value bestowed on the properties could drive up rents to unaffordable levels.

To add to our consternation, we were told that the planning system already includes the tools councils need to allow offices to be converted to residential.

That’s why I wrote a letter to the Department for Communities and Local Government asking to reverse the policy. Failing that, I argued that the Government should grant exemptions for every part of London that asked for one.

Which is why I was so disappointed last week when it emerged that two-thirds of the London councils which asked for exemptions had that request rejected. Even some of those local authorities which did manage to secure an exemption for part of their area found that their entire request wasn’t met in full.

What will happen to these jobs?

The maps of exempted areas shows Government only picked out firmly established parts of central London, primarily the Central Activities Zone, for exemption.

I have also seen the scoring matrix used in an attempt to justify these decisions, and it is anything but reassuring. Councils were told how many points they scored based on different criteria, but there was no reason given behind any of the scores. This, coupled with the fact that very similar areas where variously granted or denied exemptions, makes it look suspiciously like these were arbitrary decisions taken without listening to the very real concerns of local people.

In response to the announcement, I put out the following statement:

“These exemptions should be seen for what they are, a Government which trumpets localism whilst once again not listening to local concerns. It’s extraordinary that only ten out of 33 London boroughs were exempted from this policy when the economy needs all the help it can get. The vast majority of London is at risk of losing the office space that existing small businesses and start-ups rely on to thrive.

“We know there are better ways of getting housing than at the expense of jobs and growth.

“How will the Tech Cities of the future pop up when any property outside the boundaries will have too high a value for many businesses and start-ups? The difference in value between employment and residential properties is already high, and this policy will double or treble it in areas which aren’t exempted.”

The full press release and statement is available on the City Hall Labour website.

LONDONASSEMBLYLABOUR

news release
13.05.2013
Immediate release

Businesses and boroughs lose out with Government’s exemptions

Two-thirds of London is at risk of losing valuable office space, following the Government’s decision to allow developers to turn offices into flats without planning permission. Many boroughs requested exemptions from the Government policy but were turned down last week.

Under the new regime businesses are practically confined to areas dictated by Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Eric Pickles. By drawing boundaries around exempted areas the Government is directing where business should develop and cluster. Previously clusters like Tech City, which has been exempted, could expand naturally.

London Assembly Labour spokesperson on planning, Nicky Gavron has argued against the policy as the planning system already provides local authorities the tools to allow conversions where appropriate.

Local government officers complained they found out about the decisions on a public website.

London Assembly Labour spokesperson on planning, Nicky Gavron said:

“These exemptions should be seen for what they are, a Government which trumpets localism whilst once again not listening to local concerns. It’s extraordinary that only ten out of 33 London boroughs were exempted from this policy when the economy needs all the help it can get. The vast majority of London is at risk of losing the office space that existing small businesses and start-ups rely on to thrive.

“We know there are better ways of getting housing than at the expense of jobs and growth.

“How will the Tech Cities of the future pop up when any property outside the boundaries will have too high a value for many businesses and start-ups? The difference in value between employment and residential properties is already high, and this policy will double or treble it in areas which aren’t exempted.”

Ends

Notes

1. Nicky Gavron is a London-wide Labour Assembly Member. She chairs the London Assembly Planning Committee.
2. New permitted development rights for B1(a) office to C(3) residential will come into effect on 30 May. Last week Department for Communities and Local Government announced that only select parts of Manchester, ten London boroughs, and a handful of other areas will be exempt.
3. The Government considerably strengthened these powers in the recent National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Paragraph 51 directs local authorities to “normally approve planning applications for change to residential use”.
4. DCLG made the decisions based on a superficial scoring criteria which local authorities were only notified of after the decision had been made.

It is one year since Boris Johnson was re-elected Mayor of London. During the election campaign he made several high profile commitments, including: 1,000 more police, to “bear down” on fare rises and build 55,000 affordable homes. On all of these main promises Boris has failed to deliver. Leader of the Labour Group on the London Assembly, Len Duvall AM, today said “Boris promised Londoners a better future, all he’s delivered is broken promises”.

In the past year Boris Johnson:

- has raised transport fares above inflation for the fifth year running, despite promising to “bear down on fare rises”

- has cut 1,351 Police Officers and lost 497 Special Constables, despite promising 1,000 more Police Officers and extra Special Constables

- Failed to spend a £110million investment fund for growing London’s economy

- Failed to meet his own target of ending rough sleeping by the end of 2012

- Delivered just 1,672 social housing starts last year, down from 11,329 in the previous year

- Failed to get control of the Tech City Investment Organisation from the government

- Is trying to cut 12 fire stations, 18 fire engines and 520 firefighters, none of which were presented to Londoners prior to May 2012

- Has cut council tax by 1penny a day for a Band D Household – enough to buy a pint once a year

- Delegated major decision and spending powers to unelected political appointees

- And is trying to spend £160,000 on a survey to find out what Londoners think about him

Leader of the Labour Group on the London Assembly, Len Duvall AM, said
“The last year has seen more of the same from Boris – hiking up transport fares, cutting our frontline emergency services and failing to tackle London’s housing crisis. We’ve seen plenty of Boris having private dinners and cosying up with Rupert Murdoch. All the while Londoners are struggling with a dual cost of living and housing crisis. Boris should be putting money in people’s pockets rather than taxing work with his eye-watering fare rises.

“Rather than preening himself in the national media Boris should be using his Mayoral powers to help ordinary Londoners. We are seeing severe cuts to our frontline police and fire services which help keep us all safe and secure. At the same time Boris is doing nothing to tackle the cost of living or housing crises in our city, instead he is making them worse. Let’s hope that his attention doesn’t drift off London anymore, at this rate we’d be better off with Larry the Cat running City Hall – maybe Boris could do a job-swap, at least it would get him into No10.”

This Labour Group press release was originally posted on PoliticsHome

George Osborne and his cronies in the coalition spent last week patting themselves on the back for what they apparently considered a feat of economic management: a meagre 0.3% growth, meaning the economy is still smaller than it was before the recession hit in 2008. Meanwhile, people are working longer, often in multiple jobs, for less pay. Recovery? Recovery for who.

Earlier today I posted details of an event I’m hosting tonight at City Hall as part of the Mind the JusticeGap initiative. I have since been told that one of the panellists worked on Hughes’s case, and has asked to bring him along this evening. Hughes’s harrowing experience – being held overnight in a police station for a crime he didn’t commit and being refused the right to inform his parent – will give him a unique perspective on the relationship between young people and the law, and I look forward to welcoming Hughes to share that perspective tonight.

Hughes’s landmark case means that 17-year-olds can no longer be treated in the same way as adults when they are suspected of a committing a crime. It’s a great win for young people, but there are still so many more issues to address. I hope you’ll be able to join me tonight as the expert panel discusses these and other issues.

Next Generation – Rights and Responsibilities
A debate about what the law means to young people in 21st Century Britain
Monday April 29th 2013
6.30pm – 8pm
City Hall, Queens Walk, London SE1 1AA
Free but booking is essential – to register Miranda@hclc.org.uk or 020 8985 5236

Next Generation – Rights and Responsibilities
A debate about what the law means to young people in 21st Century Britain
Monday April 29th 2013
6.30pm – 8pm
City Hall, Queens Walk, London SE1 1AA
Free but booking is essential – to register Miranda@hclc.org.uk or 020 8985 5236

What are young people’s legal rights today?

What are the legal profession’s responsibilities to the next generation?

Do young people feel the law is “for them”?

A law student chats with young people from Hackney

I am hosting a high profile panel of youth workers, legal experts, politicians, lawyers and youth justice campaigners, in a debate to answer these questions and more. We will also hear from young people about what the law means to them, as well as the impact of cuts to legal aid and welfare on youth in London.

The panel will be chaired by www.justicegap.com editor Jon Robins and will include:

•Lord Colin Low CBE – HCLC patron, Peer in the House of Lords, and Chair of the Low Commission on the Future of Advice and Legal Support
•Sandie Okoro – Director of P.R.I.M.E Finance and Ambassador of the Law Society Diversity Access Scheme
•Shauneen Lambe – Barrister and Director of youth legal charity Just for Kids Law
•Laura Janes – Solicitor at the Howard League for Penal Reform and at Scott Moncrieff Solicitors, and founder of Young Legal Aid Lawyers

The debate is part of an exciting new initiative aimed at young people to explain their legal rights and demystify the law. Mind the JusticeGap brings young people in Hackney together with UCL law students to build a dedicated online advice guide about the law which will aim at and draw on the experience of young people.

Backed by human rights lawyer Michael Mansfield QC and former justice secretary Lord Willy Bach, the project is led by JusticeGap in collaboration with Hackney Community Law Centre, University College London’s Centre for Access to Justice, and the Hackney Council of Voluntary Services.

I hope you can join us.

We heard that London is likely to be home to more than 9 million people by 2020 and 10 million by the 2030s. We need to start planning now to accommodate that growth. Where will 300,000 more children go to school? Where will 50,000 new homes be built every year? How can we fit the additional 16 million square metres of playing fields needed based on current provision levels.

The Committee invited experts – demographers, planners, economists – to get an understanding of the size of this growth and its impact on peoples’ lives. We also explored different approaches to accommodating new population and jobs, from continuing the current policy of the ‘compact city’ (building on brownfield and densifying existing areas) to more controversial options like building on the Green Belt and open space, or expanding outside the boundaries of Greater London.

The meeting generated interest in the national, local, and trade media:
ITV – How to cope with London’s population explosion
Kensington and Chelsea Today – London’s population surge could mean 300,000 more school places needed by 2031
East London Advertiser – More East End kids get first choice primary school than London average
Local Government Executive - London needs 300,000 extra school places by 2031, expert says

Thursday’s session kicked off our ongoing investigation into the Future Growth of London. If you have any thoughts on how to accommodate the new population and jobs, please email me at nicky.gavron@london.gov.uk.

The Mayor has committed to ensuring Londoners enjoy a good and improving quality of life but to achieve this in the face of such population growth, he faces some difficult decisions. As he gets set for next month’s release of the 2020 Vision – a seven-point plan for how London and its economy should look by 2020 – and makes early preparations this summer for major revisions to the London Plan, the Committee will monitor these decisions to make sure they are the right ones for London: for our economy, our environment, and our quality of life.

How will London accommodate this growth?

The London Assembly Planning Committee will ask this question at tomorrow morning’s meeting. We will explore the demographic trends and the potential approaches to making sure London is prepared: the compact city approach of densifying and building on brownfield land, expanding beyond our current boundaries, or even building on the Green Belt and open space.

The committee meeting begins at 10am in the Chamber at City Hall. The public are welcome. You can also watch live from the link here.

Additionally, I will be on LBC 97.9 radio tomorrow morning at 6.45pm to discuss these issues.

That’s why, as chair of the London Assembly Planning Committee, I wrote to Secretary of State Eric Pickles on Tuesday, asking him to reconsider the proposal.

Committee letter to government opposing change of use

At the Committee’s March meeting , we heard that granting office-to-residential permitted development rights will usher in a free-for-all of unmanaged conversions, with local councils and local people losing all control over which office space is lost and where it’s lost from. A range of experts expressed alarm at the threat to jobs, particularly in start-ups and SMEs that rely on the sort of marginal premises that will become most at risk of conversion. To add to our consternation, we were told that the planning system already includes the tools councils need to allow offices to be converted to residential.

Faced with the prospect of London’s economy suffering a serious blow from government policy, the Committee drafted a letter to Pickles, urging him to reconsider the proposal. The Committee isn’t opposed to coverting offices to residential – in fact, in some cases doing so could be just what town centres need. The problem is that this proposal, known widely as ‘change of use’, undermines the plan-led system, and instead turns the built environment over to the whims of developers who are motivated not by need but by profit.