Nicky Gavron2013-05-22T13:22:26-04:00Nicky Gavronhttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=nicky-gavronCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Nicky GavronGood old fashioned elbow grease.Rushed and Undemocratic: How the Government Wants to Review Planning Guidancetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.19885822012-10-19T14:45:22-04:002012-12-19T05:12:01-05:00Nicky Gavronhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/nicky-gavron/government announced a review into practical planning guidance. This may be seen as a technocratic announcement but the impacts could be enormous.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in March cancelled most the guidance that was built up over 40 years. These were the rules on everything from protecting heritage sites to housing and the green belt. Obviously they needed to be replaced with something.
The review will look at what bits of the remaining guidance should be cancelled and what new guidance needs to be written.
It all sounds reasonable enough. But, as is the norm with this government's planning policies, the devil is in the details.
Why such a rushed review? It was only given six weeks to carry out what is certain to be a monumental task. Every existing policy will need careful reading, analysis, and consideration - and six week's time isn't enough.
Why no consultation? There will be no public consultation, but how can something which affects so many aspects of our lives not be worth listening to the public or experts over? The review has recruited some respectable individuals, but surely it would benefit from a much larger pool of views.
The review, headed by former Liberal Democrat MP Lord Taylor, would be worrying even under ideal circumstances. This guidance represents the accumulation of 40 years of the very best in planning policy - it is the meat and potatoes of the system which has helped Britain to gradually build better communities over the past decades. Any changes must be given careful and measured consideration. A rushed and undemocratic review hastily assembled by a government with no respect for planning can't offer that.]]>What Price on London's Heritage?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.19661902012-10-15T05:40:52-04:002012-12-15T05:12:01-05:00Nicky Gavronhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/nicky-gavron/approved the redevelopment of the historic Spitalfields Fruit and Wool Exchange.
The decision is a big loss to the local community and to this special part of the East End. But it's not just a loss to London socially and culturally, but also to its economy.
The case in favour was jobs and the Crossrail levy. But at what cost?
The Fruit and Wool Exchange opened in 1929 as a market for the fruit and vegetables coming off the ships flowing into London's Docklands. Its grand classical stone façade quickly established the building as a monument to London's preeminent role in global trade and its role as the epicentre of national distribution networks. It became a well-loved part of a thriving local community. Even when the market itself moved out in 1991, sixty small businesses of different sorts jumped at the chance to operate from the historic location. Many have traded from this building since.
The decision to redevelop threatens the intricacies of the area's social and economic fabric and will erode its character. It sets a dangerous precedent for the hallowing out of the neighbourhood, which is so steeped in history.
This is the sort of heritage we cannot afford to undervalue. It has enormous economic, social, and cultural value. One of London's major draws as a place to work, live and visit is the historic character of its neighbourhoods. One study of visitors to London found heritage was consistently cited as a highlight of their trip.
The Mayor's decision flies in the face of this.
Although the façade will not much change, it is more than just façades that matter. Areas can very quickly become stage sets. Historian Dan Cruickshank passionately argued against the proposal by describing the gorgeous white marble, carefully designed stairs, and other interior characteristics which will now be lost forever.
However, it is not just the decision itself that is wrong - it is the fact that the Mayor took over decision-making powers in the first place.
In this case, Johnson has not just ridden roughshod over local heritage. He has disregarded the wishes of local people and the local council. Tower Hamlets twice rejected this application before the Mayor took it upon himself to exercise rarely-used powers of 'call in' so that he could make the final decision.
In his fifth year as Mayor, this was only the fifth time he has wielded these powers. We have to ask just what made this case so special.
One possible answer is Crossrail. The Mayor's Crossrail levy means that every new development within areas which will be served by the new line must contribute to its costs. The contribution from the Fruit and Wool Exchange development is expected to be as much as £2,026,716.
The Mayor's planning unit's own report outlining the reasons for approving the Fruit and Wool Exchange project notes that funding for Crossrail was a consideration in the decision-making process.
So we know that the need to fund Crossrail was a factor in this decision. The question now is how much Crossrail tipped the balance.]]>Cutting Under-25s' Housing Benefit Will Increase Youth Homelessnesstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.19484472012-10-09T19:00:00-04:002012-12-09T05:12:02-05:00Nicky Gavronhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/nicky-gavron/
In typically divisive language, they write:
"Is it right that school leavers should be able to move directly from school to a life on housing benefit without finding a job first?"
This followed the prime minister's speech in June, where he originally floated the idea. His justification?
"There are many (claiming housing benefit) who will have a parental home and somewhere to stay - they just want more independence."
Is the prime minister correct to assume young people on housing benefit can and will be able to move back to live with their parents? I think not; and if history tells us anything, I'm on firm ground.
Before housing benefit, young people living in hotels, hostels and similar accommodation claimed Board and Lodgings Allowance.
In 1985, Thatcher's government reformed it by capping the level of allowance and then removing it after eight weeks in cities such as London for under-26s.
The parallels with Cameron's proposals are straight forward. Removal of benefit and entitlement based on age, not need. Just like the Conservatives of 2012, the Conservatives of 1985 claimed young adults would flock home to their parents.
As now, others disagreed. The Social Security Advisory Committee warned:
"We think the major problem with the proposals is the risk of creating a class of rootless young people..."
The committee continued:
"We do not believe it can be assumed that adequate alternative accommodation is open to claimants under 26 either in the public or private sector, or that permanent residence with parents or friends is an option which is realistically available."
The committee was proved right.
As a 1998 report by Crisis noted, the reforms:
"Were undoubtedly a factor in the continued rise in the level of single homelessness throughout the 1990s".
St Mungos say a key reason why people end up sleeping rough is difficult family background.
The simple fact is, whether they do not get on with their parents or whether there is no longer space at home, for some young people housing benefit is the only safeguard they have from a life on the streets. Without it, the journey from home to homelessness and onto the street can be a very slippery slope.
And yet, as bad as the situation was in the 1980s through to the 1990s, the context today is worse.
Today, the number of people sleeping rough is accelerating. In London last year, rough sleeping increased by 43%.
This has been driven to some extent by the government cutting the Supporting People budget by an estimated 11%. This, combined with the removal of the ring-fence that guaranteed this money was spent on helping vulnerable groups like rough sleepers, has led many local authorities to use that money to plug the gaps in other budgets and cut hostel provision.
At the same time, David Cameron's government is actively preventing young adults from returning to the family home.
In social housing, the bedroom tax on tenants with spare rooms seeks to force families into downsizing once their children move away to university or to find work.
In the private rented sector, we now know that many London families are moving to smaller flats in order to fit within Iain Duncan Smith's new caps on Local Housing Allowance.
Completely at odds with this latest welfare proposal, the government has created a policy framework that may force more young adults out of the family home and prevent many from returning.
In government, the prime minister and his cabinet are wedded to driving forward the same old failed Thatcherite agenda, wilfully ignoring the housing crisis at the root of so many social and economic problems.
Meanwhile, they divert attention by picking on those most affected by this crisis.]]>The Planning System Isn't to Blame - It's Developers and the Bankstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.18698612012-09-10T05:47:33-04:002012-11-10T05:12:01-05:00Nicky Gavronhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/nicky-gavron/
Figures published today by the Local Government Association show that in London alone, there are 93,000 houses with planning permission, but which haven't been started or have been stalled by developers. And this figure is probably an underestimate. London Councils reported last year that around 170,000 homes in the region already had planning permission but have not been built.
These figures show it is not planners or the planning system holding back housing.
These homes are not being built because banks are not lending to developers, and because house builders want to limit supply to push up prices and increase their profits. As Barratt's 2011 annual report said:
"During the year we have focused on securing the best price for every sale. Across the Group we have focused on maximising value rather than driving volumes."
The government is misdiagnosing the problem.
The culprits are the big house-builders who 'land-bank' - sitting on land without building - and the big banks that 'don't bank' - not providing mortgages to people.
Since the election the government has cut London's affordable housing budget by 70% and introduced sky-high rents for new 'affordable' housing. Now they say developers do not even need to deliver these. Their proposals are not a viable plan for growth; they are part of an ideological attack on affordable housing and will exacerbate London's housing crisis.
And what is the Mayor's record? On Boris Johnson's watch affordable housing starts in London have fallen to their lowest level for a decade due to the cut in funding and the Mayor's inability to get the new - much reduced - programme rolling.
So, while the government are busy blaming everybody but themselves, Londoners are suffering. More than ever, there is an enormous need for decent low-cost rented housing in the capital. Home ownership is becoming a distant dream for many and private sector rents are soaring well above inflation. At the same time, 200,000 families now live in overcrowded housing and rough sleeping is rising rapidly after years of decline.
The Mayor and government desperately need a plan for jobs and growth. The last thing the country needs is a misguided 'growth' programme based on ideological zeal, they need to look at the evidence and accept that their policies are hurting, but aren't working.
Nicky Gavron AM
London Assembly Labour Housing and Planning Spokesperson
twitter @nickygavron
www.nickygavron.co.uk]]>Homes for London?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.15494282012-05-27T19:00:00-04:002012-07-27T05:12:05-04:00Nicky Gavronhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/nicky-gavron/
On 20 April, with his re-election looming, Boris Johnson pledged to deliver on Shelter's campaign to create 'Homes for London'. Post-election, it has become crystal clear that Boris had no idea what measures he had signed up to.
During Wednesday's Mayor's Question Time he told me that the Homes for London he has created is simply the new name for The London Housing Board. He's taken the name but none of the initiatives or policies.
He even told me he would have to "look at the detail of what is entailed by that pledge".
This makes it hard to consider his pre-election support as anything other than cynical electioneering. Boris Johnson got good publicity off the back of his pledge and at the time of writing the Homes for London website still proudly proclaims:
"At the end of April we had a major win: Boris Johnson pledged to create Homes for London."
Not that he noticed. On Wednesday he told me:
"I may have had a lot of publicity but not enough to come to my attention."
But the biggest shame is not that Boris Johnson seems to have notched up the first broken promise of his second term, but that he is going to continue to fail millions of Londoners living in the private rented sector.
Rents rose 12% last year alone, complaints about rogue landlords and rip-off letting agents are increasing and the government's welfare reforms will compound the pain.
Shelter's Homes for London provided some solution to these. A mayoral London-wide Letting Agency with fairer rents and securer longer-term tenancies that work for families coupled with a drive to prosecute rogue landlords - these are not just good ideas, they are an essential minimum.
Boris Johnson should pay attention. To date, his record on the private rented sector is worse than poor.
His main 'achievements' being a voluntary landlord accreditation scheme with no qualifying criteria, a London Rents Map that tells Londoners where they cannot afford to live and a Housing Strategy with no policies to tackle rogue landlords and extortionate rent increases. His manifesto was equally threadbare, promising just more of the same.
A third of London households now live in this sector. Their living standards are being squeezed, people can't get deposits together, poor environmental standards effect their health and children's wellbeing and education is damaged by the constant churn.
The Mayor has the position, influence and power to tackle these problems. So far he has chosen not to. Let's hope, once he studies the details, he will change his mind.
Nicky Gavron AM is the London Assembly Labour Spokesperson for Housing and Planning
You can follow Nicky on twitter at twitter.com/nickygavron and at nickygavron.co.uk]]>Ken Versus Boristag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.14710562012-05-02T19:00:00-04:002012-07-02T05:12:13-04:00Nicky Gavronhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/nicky-gavron/
This is the time to look back on the records of both men: what each inherited, and their legacies.
For Labour you have an effective and uniquely experienced 'executive' Mayor, with an encyclopaedic knowledge of London - Ken Livingstone
For the Tories a convivial part-time 'ceremonial' Mayor, good at opening things, one-liners and endless waffle - Boris Johnson.
Compare their records.
When Ken was elected in 2000 London was a world city at risk after 14 years with no citywide government.
The transport system was creaking at the seams: internationally, London was renowned for being easy to get to but difficult to get around, with congested streets and ramshackle public transport. There was an acute housing crisis, growing inequalities and a huge backlog of investment in social infrastructure and the environment.
As London's first elected Mayor, Ken set up the GLA from scratch, defining its modus operandi and establishing its vision and goals. As his Deputy Mayor I was part of that process, and honestly cannot imagine anyone who could have got the authority up and running more efficiently or more quickly than Ken. While being happy to debate and discuss issues with staff, stakeholders and the public, Ken had a complete grasp of the options and admirable decisiveness.
He was acutely aware that the new authority had to tackle lots of things at once.
He began a revolution in how we police our city. He increased the number of police on the streets, bringing them out of their cars and into our communities, introducing the Safer Neighbourhoods community policing teams in every ward in London.
He tackled the then woefully inadequate transport system. In the short term, he massively improved the bus system, adding a third to the fleet and draconian enforcement of bus lanes.
At the same time he began a rail renaissance - tube modernisation; creating the overground network, including the East London Line extension; and getting Crossrail agreed and funded after decades of procrastination by central governments. Ken also prepared a programme of future transport projects post 2018 and, of course, introduced the Oyster Card, congestion charge and the London Low Emission Zone. These and other policies resulted in the fastest shift out of the private car and onto bikes, buses, and feet in any major city in the world.
He inherited a housing crisis and a rapidly rising population. He doubled the number of homes built in London each year from 17,000 to 32,000 and worked towards 50% affordable homes in every housing development. He secured from the Labour government the largest housing investment budget ever in London - £5bn over to provide 50,000 homes in three years.
He tackled London's huge carbon footprint with a raft of measures including the first comprehensive Climate Change Action Plan and set up the C40 group of large cities worldwide to collaborate to address climate change at the metropolitan scale.
He took on the challenge of regenerating the Thames Gateway, the largest concentration of multiply deprived communities in Western Europe. It was Ken who spearheaded the campaign to secure the Olympic and Paralympic Games for London to give momentum to the regeneration of East London and the Thames Gateway.
In short, Ken gave us a powerful vision for the future - "to develop London as an exemplary sustainable world city" - and provided the means to deliver it.
He also introduced a raft of policies to make London a fairer and more equal city. He created the women's unit at city hall, provided assistance with child care, gave under 18s free travel and funded a host of events celebrating the many cultures across London.
Boris Johnson inherited that catalogue of solid achievements when he entered City Hall in 2008 and has spent the past four years enjoying the fruits of Ken's labour. From Crossrail to the Olympics, Johnson has merely cut the ribbons on Ken's projects.
Johnson has done very little, but he's undone a great deal.
His first act was to cancel nearly all of Ken's long-term transport projects, starting with the Thames Gateway Bridge.
He weakened the London Plan, especially in respect of housing, abandoning Ken's ambitious target that 50 percent of all new homes should be affordable.
He squandered the record £5 billion housing budget, failing to deliver the 50,000 affordable homes by 2011.
He got rid of the accessible bendy buses and replaced them with eight 'Boris Buses' at about £1.25 m each... probably the most expensive bus in the world!
Despite his claims to the contrary, he managed to reduce by almost 2,000 the number of police officers in advance of the Olympics and Paralympics.
And when his leadership was tested last summer, during the August Riots, he utterly failed even the basic test of being in London. What a contrast to Ken's response to 7/7.
Perhaps most serious of all, while Ken is campaigning against the Tory government's welfare reforms, Boris Johnson 'absolutely' supports them. By 2016 only 20% of inner-London and less than half of outer-London neighbourhoods will be affordable to people receiving housing benefit - most of who are either in work or pensioners.
As we are starting to see, this will change the social fabric of London. It will create social segregation on an unprecedented scale and undo the mixed communities that have driven London's social and economic success.
As a Tory Mayor, Boris has been obsessed with the Tory agenda. This is the man who in September 2010 said:
"You know we in the government in London have been making very substantial cuts for the last two years. I don't think there's any part of government across Whitehall that's moved so far and so fast to make cuts."
The fact is that even before the recession Boris's main activity as a part-time Mayor has been cutting investment in London.
That is why there is virtually nothing for him to call his own and nothing in the locker for the next term. As a cabbie put it to me, we got a bunch of bikes for city blokes, when we could have had a bridge over the Thames for east enders.
In contrast, Ken's record shows he will fight to make London a fairer and more equal city. He will deliver more homes that Londoners can afford, safer streets, more jobs and training and better transport with cheaper tube and bus fares.
He has new ideas about delivering more affordable homes in partnership with the pension funds and a serious commitment to cutting London's carbon emissions.
Ken has the record the show that he'll deliver for all Londoners and that he speaks for all Londoners in a crisis.
In the end, the sensible choice is Ken.
The only arguments against him have been a relentless stream of negative campaigning. That worked in 2008. Don't let Boris get away with it again.]]>