Turning offices into homes (Palgrave Macmillan, 2019). She has worked on research projects for the RICS Research Trust and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Jessica is active in planning practice and policy in London. Prior to becoming a lecturer, Jessica worked for ten years as a planning consultant and in public practice for a north London planning authority.

Urban planning systems, processes and regulations are often blamed – by many mainstream economists – for constraining the supply of housing by interfering with the efficient allocation of land by the market and unnecessarily delaying development. In England, this orthodox view has influenced the government’s deregulatory planning reforms, including – since 2013 – the removal of the requirement for developers to apply for planning permission for the conversion of an office building to a residential one (making it ‘permitted development’). Drawing on original empirical research in five local authority areas in England, this article examines the impacts of this deregulation of planning control on the ground. We find that, although more housing units have been delivered than were expected, a focus on housing numbers is eclipsing problems of housing quality, the type of housing being made available and whether it is in sustainable locations. There are also costs of deregulating planning, including direct financial costs and the lost opportunity to secure affordable housing and public infrastructure through planning gain. We conclude by examining the contradictions in the UK government’s approach to addressing the housing crisis and propose there are dangers of deregulating the urban that have consequences for England and other countries pursuing neoliberal reforms.

This article explores the relationships between land use policy, property and economic development, with a focus on the changing attitudes towards employment land in postindustrial cities. Drawing on case study data from two London local authorities, it finds that planning authorities are moving away from protecting employment land to actively promoting the mixed use redevelopment of employment sites, even when there are thriving businesses on these sites and a shortage of supply of employment premises and land, relative to demand. We examine the drivers for changing policy including the national and regional policy contexts, housing targets, the influence of austerity measures, rise of Neighbourhood Planning and changing conceptions of regeneration and the role of housing therein. The article highlights the complex task faced by local planners and the tensions involved in simultaneously finding sites for housing, fostering economic development, and promoting mixed use redevelopment in planning policy and decisions. We find that changes in policy are fuelling speculation for housing development on sites occupied by viable businesses, supporting rather than responding to deindustrialization. This is leading to a gap between aspirations for delivering mixed use environments on hitherto employment sites and realities on the ground.

The displacement of small businesses in cities with rising land values is of increasing concern to local communities and reflected in the literature on commercial or industrial gentrification. This article explores the perception of such gentrification as both a problem and an opportunity, and considers the motivations and implications of state intervention in London, where policies requiring affordable workspace to be delivered within mixed use developments have been introduced. Based on case studies of 13 mixed use developments in London, the findings reveal the limitations and unintended consequences of affordable workspace policies, leading to a call for planners to revisit and strengthen more traditional planning tools.

This paper examines the challenges that planners face if industry is to survive and thrive in a growing 'postindustrial' city. It examines London, where the difference between the value of land for residential and industrial use, and the pressure to address the housing crisis, is leading to the rapid loss of industrial land and premises. The paper first explores the role of industry in a high-value city such as London, arguing that trends in manufacturing in advanced economies are increasing the benefit for firms of an urban location, whilst at the same time, cities continue to need industry if they are to be economically and socially resilient, sustainable and vibrant. The paper then explores current approaches to planning for industry in London, identifying impacts of a policy framework that anticipates and plans for its decline. Finally, it focuses on the question of how to plan for a productive and inclusive city: we explore the arguments in favour of integrating industry into the urban fabric as well as the benefits of separating land uses and retaining employment land designations, and reveal how urbanists are divided. We argue that if London is to continue to prosper, and meet the needs of all Londoners, then we need to strategically and proactively plan for industry in the city, to experiment with innovative ways of integrating it with other city uses, whilst protecting land for industry, where required. We put forward a critical research agenda to effectively meet this challenge in the future.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract