Hi, Tom, how are you doing?

 

Good. How are you? 

 

Great. I wanted to ask you about your time as chair of the industrial and logistics panel, which I think lasted around two years, and which you are in the process of stepping down from. Firstly, what do you feel are the key takeaways from that period? What are the main topics that emerge at the forefront of your mind when you think back on the discussions that you've had over that period – and maybe some of the wins?

 

Yeah, sure. It's a really terrific experience. Briefly on the structure, the expert panels themselves were a very enlightening experience for me. We were sitting around the table with key people to do with London; their experience, their expertise, and their knowledge of the market on industrial, logistics and colocation felt exceptional. And so, when a topic was raised, it was discussed and debated rigorously and intellectually, but with real understanding and insight and a view to the future, as well as what's gone right and wrong in the past. 

So that was a real privilege to do that. And I think that was captured over the two years' discussions, and then ultimately in the White Paper that went towards the New London Agenda, which I framed, so I captured all the thoughts in there. But I think then the step up from that was that the chairs were invited to another meeting, chaired by Sadie Morgan. And that was really, really great as well.

Peter (Murray) was there at the first one about 18 months ago. And we suddenly realized that we brought a lot of information, knowledge and understanding from our particular panels, and brought it together with all the other issues that make up London's organism. When one of us said something or asked a question, there was another person around the table who could answer it. So, whether that's data or transport, or health, or living, it was fantastic, and it really felt like a moment. 

And you realise the real power of what the NLA was doing, and what these panels were doing when they came together, and then ultimately, that's been shared now with the GLA. 

The relationship with the GLA got stronger. On the panel itself, we had a member join us, Jörn Peters. And that meant that the work they were doing on the same topics was shared. It was a real knowledge exchange. And ultimately, now they've done some new guidelines for the London Plan and we feel like we've contributed. And I think it's been a two-way process. 

So, that was a long-winded way of saying I think the panel itself has been incredibly effective - the group of panels, and then ultimately, the New London agenda or the ‘script for London’ as somebody raised it the other day. It's been a privilege, a great experience.

 

So in a sense, the panel had teeth, rather than just being a talking shop? And that showed through a real effect on policymaking?

 

I hope so. I think it's made its point. I think it had teeth within the panel. We had polemics, we had differences of opinion and quite strong opinions. And that was very useful. So we didn't shy away from things. We shared that in our papers. And every time there's been a panel discussion, or there's been some public airing of the work we've done, that comes out quite strongly, and that's good. I guess the real test is what happens to London over the next five years.  And how much some of this is picked up by governance, whether that's the current or new mayor and their group of people. I don't think we stopped. I don't think the panel just sits around chatting and then that's it (laughs). We've captured a lot of what we talked about; the panel continues with a new chair, as you said, so Kat Fraser from Turley is great, and will carry that on. 

I will come on to this, but things like the networks group – we started drawing a map of London. We got pens out; you know, we did it as a very hands-on thing. We were saying, where's the main artery? Where can be served well? And that's a group of people who know exactly what they're doing, from people like Prologis and Segro, the Waterways, the Port of London Authority, and others. There's real expertise in trying to work out what the problems were of moving goods around London. I think the teeth is really in the continuity. We're not going away. We're still talking about it and it's growing and expanding into other groups. So, we can talk to the transport group or whatever it is, the data group...

 

Yes ..So you mentioned just then the problems of logistics and moving stuff around London. What are they in a nutshell? What's the key blockage, if there is one?

 

I think you have to look at people a bit first, because they're obviously key to the city, the actual human plane and people who move around it. And we've been getting quite good at helping them move around London, you know, over hundreds of years, in many different systems. But things like the Elizabeth Line, the investment in that and the popularity of that and the success of that you can see. It's great. And it's kind of fed Greater London. I think the roads are getting better in terms of being more cycle-friendly from a personal point of view, but also, I think from an environmental point of view. The 20-mile-an-hour speed limit. I think we're quite good at buses, tubes; we're quite good at moving people around. The goods - It's like, “oh, well, that'll happen somehow” approach. It has felt like that's the way it's been dealt with for a long time. We have this, I call it circular tension. We want to get things to us in places in London; we don't really acknowledge how that happens. But we do see now more and more little vehicles running around with those goods. And the greater the demand for stuff – whether that's food or goods – the greater you need to actually physically move it. So, roads, river, railway lines, dare I say it airway, somehow - maybe a drone type thing, but I think we're a way away from that. That's a network, and you have to make that work with people's movements as well. So, it's getting all these groups together to say: we’re the hotspot for industrial and logistics, and arguably places like Park Royal is one of them. And that serves a huge number of people. People like Segro and Prologis understand that. There are areas which are poorly served by the roads, particularly most of South London. North London has all these motorways that terminate just around the edge, around the North Circular but South London doesn't quite have that. There is therefore an opportunity to use the river. And we're doing a project exactly like that, which is really pioneering. I'm working on a project called Orchard Wharf which is going to be a logistics hub on the river. And South London could benefit from that as well.  There are other groups that this panel has led into like the Thames Estuary board, the Kerb-Dock project, which has been looking at all of this. 

So that is a long answer. But you know, our minds were just broadened as we sat around chatting about these issues, and you realize it's an organism that needs this network of movement of goods to make it be integrated and work well now and in the future, sustainably and efficiently. 

So, it's hugely complex, in a way. But also, you get a map out and you get some pens on it. And it makes us clearer and more tangible about suggestions you can make, and people getting involved.  There are new technologies like monorail things that people can do in small tunnels, like a meter diameter and shoot things around slightly shorter distances, probably like campuses and things. There are those possibilities for moving stuff around. And then I think just the joined-up thinking about timeshare of roads, so things coming in at night when there are fewer people around. It's great. It's very exciting. And it just needs to continue, that debate. 

You mentioned just now that you didn't go there in terms of air. Did you mean let's not go there in this conversation? Or did you just avoid the subject completely in terms of, say drone delivery of items? Because that's coming, isn't it? Or at least the debate is coming?

 

I think it's proven in places like the Isle of Shetland where it gets some goods delivered and certainly, blood deliveries are being talked about like that. I think there's an essential that could use that very readily. I think it's just not been worked out yet. It is a three-dimensional movement issue for the city. If you've got a lot of drones flying around, we've already got some helicopters and then above those some aeroplanes. And if you add drones to that, there are many issues. So it just needs working out. I think most of the logistics people I've spoken to see it as not imminent in an urban situation. But it's possible. The technology is there. I think it's how it integrates with the wider network, again, which suddenly becomes three-dimensional. It's not just on the ground. It's not science fiction; it can do it. Maybe it happens in pockets. I think certainly everybody's thinking about it. 

 

Yeah, because there was a company - I forget who - which was formed to go about buying some rooftop space specifically for this purpose; to be mini-drone airports, as it were, or landing points. Is that fiction? Did I imagine that or is that happening?

 

I don't personally know that company. But certainly, we're designing things which are slightly to the edge of central London, where there's a bit more space, things are lower around it, there aren't tall buildings. And you can well imagine a rooftop operation happening and serving a whole residential community. So perhaps something comes in off the river, unloads into a large building where it's broken down into packages, and then there's a fleet of drones, which at certain times of day or night could be operated and delivered to a borough or a neighbourhood.  I think that makes sense. It's not for me because I don't run those businesses to logistically know how that would work, exactly. But I think you're right. I think it can happen. There are obviously tensions when you think a little bit about privacy; cameras and stuff like that. A little bit about, I guess there's some kind of potential risk to that as well, just operationally. Who knows what else they could carry, etc. But I understand they're very successful in delivering things behind enforcement centres in prisons.

 

Yes! (laughs)

 

I mean, people, innovation, entrepreneurialism, it's a technology that people see with potential, and somebody will come up with some ways of making it work. So yes, that's all good, you know, as long as you can say, that's all good, and possible. So I think you're right. Your example is I'm sure out there. 

 

Now there's a widely reported statistic about the loss of London's industrial, which I think is from 2001 to 2020 of about 1500 hectares. How are we doing on this? Are we turning the tide a little would you say? What's the state of play?

 

Yeah, no, I mean, that's a huge number isn't it,1500 hectares?  I think it was Segro in their keep London Working report that highlighted it to most of London for the first time, which was great. And it was just there were lots of basically industrial building sheds that were being turned over to other uses, primarily residential. That highlighted, in turn, the need for homes that we need to provide as well. So I think, again, we certainly, at Aukett Swanke have been looking at well over 50, maybe 60 sites now across London, where you can say we can retain the industrial use, and add other uses. The debates around that colocation have been very exciting, and also testing - rightly so. And I think that helps people realize that you can retain the employment use; that it's not all, you know, really polluting or dirty or noisy. They're very sophisticated operations more often than not inside. So that realisation – and it's been a perception thing – has been a journey we've been on.  I think that will help turn that tide. I can't say whether it's actually happened fully yet, but it's definitely changing. And policies, you know, the protected areas, strategic industrial land, locally significant industrial land, those two categories, which are now in every borough and are governed, or overseen by the GLA is great, and it's important and the employment spaces, people are realizing that. I think within the nuances of colocation, you just have to get that right. It's a kind of no-compromise approach that's required on retaining industrial employment type use, but also, certainly not compromising on any other use; you add to that. That really isn't just residential. Although that's the key one we're doing that ourselves. But also, we're doing things like industrial sites, where we're re-providing the light industrial uses and adding things like life sciences facilities above or around them.

For us, it's just got much more sophisticated, where we have a smarter way of doing it, if you like, than putting things on top, which the press picked up on with the phrase ‘beds on sheds’. It's not that simple. And it's not that straightforward. It's cleverer now, and we feel like we've got that going. So, all of these things are contributing towards the retention of some of that land. Within that, the actual use type is a very hot topic. So B8, B2 and E class have been the primary types. B8 - industrial and logistics, B2 - general manufacturing and E class which can be a lot of things now office to light industrial. So there was a tendency to replace some of those spaces with E class. And then the debate was: well do you actually need it has anyone actually wanting it? But that was much easier, more palatable. The famous phrase: it's all candlestick makers. But B8 there's a huge demand for, especially during COVID and following it. So how do you get B8 more frequently into London areas? It's a bit bigger. There are more vehicle movements. And it's not quite the crafty kind of thing. But it is sophisticated; it uses very high technologies. It's probably more noisy than making candles but it's certainly not a big polluting industrial environments like a Lowry painting which is the example, I always use. So all of that protection and retention of industrial land across London is a hot topic. It's being addressed. And so I can't tell you whether the tide has actually turned, but I think it will because we need it.

 

And what of multi-level? Is it again, also a case of simply needing pioneer schemes in the capital to convince people and change perceptions? 

 

Yes, I think so. Again, if you look at places like Japan and Asia, they've been doing multilevel for a long time. Again, the debate around that focuses on ramps or lifts and the strength of the floor on the upper level. So therefore, what you can actually do on a ground floor industrial building logistics is incredibly strong. The upper floors tend to be about a third of that strength, maybe less. And you just need to make sure you're providing the facility for the demand. So multi-level can definitely work and there are examples of that going on. There's the V Park, which is a Segro project, which uses a lift; there is Industria which is over in Barking and Dagenham, which uses a ramp; there are further options, or examples that have been developed by some of the big companies, logistics firms, some of which I can't say too much about, but I think they know who they are! And they're looking at either lifts or ramps. There are strong opinions about which will work. At Aukett Swanke, we've developed an approach which uses a ramp and lifts. It's part of our 100-year chassis design ideas that we've had now for quite a long time, where any building you design should really be for the future. You should be able to change its use quite easily. So a 100-year chassis could be in a logistics light industrial building now. But in the future, it can transform into other things. 

That is hugely sustainable, and we think viable. We've done a few schemes, which are about four or five storeys, and we ramp up to the first floor and then take lifts above it. And we have a view on materials for that as well. So some materials are going to be far longer lasting than others, which means your carbon footprint analysis when they are first built might seem higher. But if they're going to be around 100 years, and frankly longer than that, then they have a sustainable narrative, which means they can change their uses for something quite different. And that's a big area for us at the moment that we're really pushing on. Can't say too much about that, actually. But it's a project we're working on, which is looking way beyond the 100 years. And that's fascinating. But I think the industrial intensification, multi-level is coming, more and more. People want to see it working; you can look overseas and see it working. It's just accepting it here.

 

So the NLA produced, as you know, the industrial and logistics report, Can London Deliver? And I was wondering in a pat way, what is the answer to that question from your standpoint? 

 

Absolutely. It's a complex organism, the city, as I've mentioned previously, and it's how you integrate with that. So London can deliver. And it's got to deliver on more than just that.  It's got to deliver on lots of things. It's a hugely exciting international city that seems to have got stronger and stronger in the last 20 years. Internationally favoured for lots of different reasons. So we've got to make it work, or you'll end up with too much movement, too much stuff that doesn't quite fit with the perception of what it is to live in a city i.e. there's an industrial building over here. But is that a good thing or a bad thing? We can make it a good thing. And I bring that into the environment and the opportunity for a large roof for an industrial space, for example, to be a great space, both for the well-being of the people below, with skylights, but also biodiversity with green roofs, with photovoltaics and energy production or passive energy production. They have a very strong stable floor which is great for thermal mass and can be hugely agile for future use. So within that, London can make it work. It always feels like you're having to re-say this to everybody, in a way, but not to the expert panel! They get it. But I think that industrial buildings are very exciting and can be very friendly. And if you do the phrase which Southwark introduced called Windows on Work, you give some views into those operations. They can be integrated. People say: “Oh, I see what's going on in there. That's really good.” The people who work in them look out and say I'm still part of the community. This is important. And then they can be integrated. So London can be made to work with it, and it has to be. You don't want it to be like an add-on industrial logistics, distribution an add-on to the city. It's got to be really skilfully integrated. I think it is in places and it's beginning to happen. But it does feel like one for the next 20 years. We've just got to start to build the strategies and acknowledge all of these issues now, and build the strategy. 

So that's why, frankly, I come back to the big map of London and the pens and the group of people sitting around, pointing and saying: this could work, that could work. And then taking that out, again, for wider dialogue. Stakeholder engagement is key, and exciting. And I think that's, again, through the structure of the NLA expert panels. You've then got other people to go and chat to and say, well, we're looking at this, what do you think about this in terms of housing or healthcare? How does that integrate with that? 

 I'm a very optimistic person, I think. So I kind of get enthusiastic about these things when I see something either working or not working. And I try to think innovatively about it. I feel the experts, the specialists, the knowledge, the intellectual debate – and then the actions – really can make it work. Yes, absolutely. 

 

Well, that's a great way to end this conversation. And thank you very much on behalf of NLA, as well, for your work in this field and on the panel.

 

Thank you, David. It's always a pleasure.