Notwithstanding the many market challenges facing housing delivery in London right now, we must not overlook the need to deliver high quality, environmentally and socially sustainable development.  

 

In the second of our Housing Expert Panel’s meetings, established to inform the New London Agenda, the panel’s roundtable discussion reflected on three key interlinked topics:

The panel suspected that the majority (if not all) option studies and linked ballot processes have thus far failed to adequately and robustly test the feasibility and whole-lifecycle carbon implications of different estate regeneration options.  

 

It was felt that a more standardised technical assessment methodology ought to be considered across London ensuring objective and accessible facts are provided to key stakeholders (including affected residents) so that better decisions can be made.  Any such guidance would need to account for the various build and tenure typologies evident across the capital.

 

The panel shared examples of best practice from around London, including Poplar HARCA and LB Hounslow piloting their own quality handbooks, whilst the GLA continues to test design codes that local authorities might use.  

 

Set against this good practice was a growing sense amongst the panel that existing and emerging design and environmental policies (and associated processes) were in some areas directly in conflict and that reconciling these differences during the design and planning process was becoming increasingly challenging.  This should also account for the key differences between small and large sites.

 

Separately, whilst the GLA may be interested in testing funding approaches, the panel also acknowledged the many challenges of trying to apply funding support for higher standards when viability and policy objectives would inevitably vary greatly across the London geography.

 

Incentivising higher standards through sharing best practice and resolving policy conflicts might therefore be the priority (perhaps through a new Taskforce), whilst funding approaches to deliver “out-performance” should continue to be researched, potentially feeding into the next round of the Affordable Homes Programme.

The panel again discussed best practice performance measurement being seen across the capital, with the best examples identified being centred more on “good methodology” rather than solely (often monetised) “good impact”.   BeFirst appears to be very proactive in this area, piloting a number of innovative approaches to performance measurement using hard and soft measures, some of which was proactive rather than reactive.

 

The Panel will now break into three groups focussing on each of these key themes, where each group will look to build on previous recommendations to ensure that clear proposals are put forward into the New London Agenda.