MIPIM | Could London-style community ballots combat Northern NIMBYISM?
An innovate approach to resident engagement is making the process of delivering dense housing schemes in the capital smoother, but could it be rolled out and scaled up to break through planning barriers elsewhere?
The Greater London Authority’s community ballot system effectively gives residents living in estates due for regeneration the chance to vote in favour of or against a proposed development.
A scheme can only progress to the next stage if a majority of residents votes in favour.
To date, there have been 36 ballots in favour of regeneration since 2018, according to Tom Copley, London’s deputy mayor of housing and residential development, who was speaking at MIPIM’s Housing Matters! Conference.
The ballot process, introduced in 2018, gives residents “a much, much stronger voice”, he said.
“It can even mean residents are much more involved in the actual design of a lot of these schemes.”
The ballot has been particularly effective when it comes to projects that propose an increase in density.
If those who live on a 400-home estate vote in favour of a 1,000-home redevelopment project, their collective voice will count for more than those of other local objectors who do not live there.
Buy-in from the existing community can, therefore, be a powerful tool for developers and it is incumbent on them to make their case well and bring residents into the fold.
The system was introduced by London Mayor Sadiq Khan, who delivered a keynote speech at MIPIM on Monday, during which he declared “City Hall is taking on the NIMBYs”.
The ballot process forms part of that crusade and allows local communities to have a real say on schemes that will directly impact them.
“It means that social landlords and their partners really do have to involve and engage with residents throughout the process,” Copley said.
One London-based developer believes the ballot has been successful but admits to being sceptical initially.
“We were hesitant about it at the start,” said Darragh Hurley, chief executive of Mount Anvil.
“But what it has actually meant is that, when people oppose the density, we have a very strong group of local people who want a better chance for them and their families [speaking in support of the scheme].
“That’s a challenge, and a way that London, I think, has come up with a solution that really helps.”
Last year, Mount Anvil, working in partnership with landlord Riverside Group, secured an 88% vote in favour of plans to regenerate the Tiller Road Estate on the Isle of Dogs.
The backing of a positive ballot goes some way to giving landlords and developers a mandate to deliver their plans. In return, they make pledges to residents that they must deliver on, including agreements on compensation, temporary accommodation while work takes place, and even the level of service charge they will have to pay inn the future.
The process gives a voice and bargaining power to those who otherwise might not feel compelled to engage in debates around housing.
Often the planning consultation process attracts only certain demographics, Hurley said.
“Our experience of work in central London on new planning applications is the people who do have access to the [planning] system are generally, older, wealthy, well-educated, and already living in their own homes.”
Developers in the North regularly cite local politics as one of the factors that slows down development. Initiatives like London’s community ballot system might be one avenue to explore to overcoming that barrier.
In the North West there are various such squabbles ongoing, including at Ryebank Fields in Manchester, while the recent Mirrlees Fields scheme in Stockport, which was rejected and then approved at appeal, was an example of how pushback from the community can slow things down.
However, the ballot process is limited in scope. It only applies to schemes where residents currently live so would not be a solution – in its current form – to endless debates around developing on vacant sites.
That is not to say a similar process could not be implemented to address these situations. At present, pretty much anyone from anywhere can object to a planning application.
This is where many argue the consultation process – for both individual planning applications and local plans – falls down.
A move to focus the conversation around those who would be most impacted by a scheme – say those within a one-mile radius – would allow developers to work more closely with stakeholders to find solutions to potential issues while cutting through the noise of planning politics.
With backing from locals, developers could present a more compelling argument when committee rolls around and have a better chance of convincing members of a project’s benefits.
While those in the industry who have been burned in the past might hesitate at the thought of giving communities more of a say in development, in the long term, enshrining initiatives such as community ballots into policy could soften the often-adversarial relationship between the person on the street and developers on the whole.
