Delancey’s trials and triumphs show how to get schemes approved

Ask any developer: getting planning consent is never easy. In fact, it’s probably getting harder. Evidence for such a statement is only anecdotal, but many developers feel anti-developer sentiment is on the rise.  Government cuts to housing and local authority budgets, a general increase in housing costs and a market that has built too few homes at affordable levels in recent years all set the stage for a local backlash when it comes to regeneration. Locals are becoming more engaged, better informed and, with tools such as Twitter, can whip up a social media storm and galvanise the community against a scheme. Are high-profile, controversial cases such as Delancey’s Elephant & Castle shopping centre and Bishopsgate Goods Yard just the new normal, or can developers do more earlier in the development process to mitigate controversies later on? Early consultation is key Getting in early, knocking on doors and setting up face-to-face dialogue is a must, so that local communities feel empowered to have a say over how their community develops. Too many developers still submit an EIA application, then consult the local community with plans already in place, when instead they should consult first, then submit an application.  Of course, developers will have an end game in sight, with viability constraints, and bottom-line GDVs to aspire to. Somewhere in the middle – having the flexibility to respond to pre-application advice from planning officers as well as locals in the design process, while maintaining risk/reward ratios – is ideal. What, if anything, could Delancey have done differently during the planning process for the Elephant & Castle shopping centre, or was this just a special case with special circumstances? Two-year lead time The planning application was submitted in October 2016, three years after the site was acquired. The first of many consultation events took place in January 2014; images of what the scheme would look like surfaced more than four months before the application hit the desks of Southwark Council.  Locals wouldn’t have been in for a shock. Throughout the process Delancey had made it clear that the scheme would be for the private rental market, and include 35% affordable housing. So why the huge local backlash? It is possible that what had gone on before in the local area – bad deals, broken promises, bridges burnt and confidence lost – fuelled resistance to the development community. Entering this sort of a planning environment is never going to be plain sailing. One of the most vocal voices opposing the plans came from the 35% Campaign, as seen below. https://twitter.com/35percent_EAN/status/1025305302135128064 The irony is, of course, is that Delancey had always proposed 35% affordable housing with a variety of different affordability brackets. In July 2018, the 35% Campaign raised 44 points with councillors on the planning committee in order to persuade them to oppose the plans. The first point stated: “The improved affordable housing offer does not meet the Core Strategy requirement that 50% of the affordable housing should be social rented (about 165 units).” Looking at the 44 issues raised by the 35% Campaign, it’s arguable that any would pass the scrutiny of a planning inspector, if indeed the scheme was appealed on these points. Yes, the industry needs to provide more social rented homes, but subsidised housing needs greater subsidy. Recent statistics illustrate how little has been provided of late. For context, across London in the 2015-16 financial year just 338 social rented homes were approved. In fact, just 9,600 have been approved since 2012, according to the latest GLA statistics. Delancey offered 330 affordable homes, of which 33 were for social rent. This number was increased to 116, with the help of a further GLA grant subsidy and the rejigging of phasing within the scheme. In short, more affordable homes will be built further down the line, rather than early on. This all goes the way of increasing viability, and therefore the type of homes that can be offered. Major schemes like this take time, and the public engagement, pre-application and consultation stage must not be rushed. Back in 2013, Delancey was quoted as saying the replacement scheme could be completed by 2018. Of course, it has only recently been granted consent, and is still yet to get full sign-off on its s106 and from the mayor of London. Another issue that drew a backlash from locals centred on rents for the retail element. Locals feared the new scheme would mean higher rents and thus fewer affordable shops.  Delancey has offered six nearby relocation options for independent traders while construction works are taking place. These, the firm says, will provide around 23,500 sq ft more space than the traders had in 2014. The timing of events is also an important factor. At the latter stages of planning, the Southwark councillors had to deal with upcoming local elections, during which councillors could have been more easily influenced by local voters. Objections pay off To give the 35% Campaign and others credit, their continued high-profile objections to the scheme could have been behind the increased GLA subsidy on the scheme, which resulted in more affordable units aimed at lower incomes. At the final planning committee meeting, at which the scheme was approved, Delancey said the scheme was at “breaking point” and had been “pushed very hard” by Southwark Council on viability and affordable housing. As seen in the Elephant & Castle case, Twitter can be used to great effect. Though the social media platform is not usually conducive to worthwhile and meaningful dialogue, it does provide a medium on which people can vent their frustrations. But could Delancey have done anything differently? How did Delancey do it? Engaging in early, meaningful dialogue; offering 35% affordable housing, equating to 330 affordable units (where there were none before) from day one; being conscious of the needs of local independent traders; and including a bingo operator within the new scheme (another contentious issue for locals); all helped persuade councillors to vote in Delancey’s favour, as did a brand new Northern Line station entrance and nearly £20m in CIL payments. Developers, investors, consultants should be aware of the new planning playing field. Being upfront from the start, willing to listen, and having the flexibility to adapt to changing environments will go some way towards dealing with local people’s concerns.  But sometimes, as Delancey found out, you just have to roll with the punches. To send feedback e-mail paul.wellman@egi.co.uk  or tweet @paulwellman eg or @estatesgazette