Category: Architecture

“This whole thing is a load of cobblers!” huffed a flustered Boris Johnson, sitting at his round table in London’s City Hall on Thursday afternoon. “We need to get on and build this bridge … you just cannot bear the idea that a great project is going ahead. That is what this is all about. A load of cobblers.”

It was the surreal climax to what felt like something of a festive garden bridge pantomime. The fairy lights of a Christmas market twinkled through the windows while tourists shuffled along the south bank clutching cups of mulled wine, oblivious to the heated debate going on inside the chamber. The mayor had been summoned, along with the head of Transport for London Mike Brown and its planning director Richard de Cani, to explain themselves to the Greater London Authority’s Oversight Committee over the murky genesis of the proposed garden bridge. And Boris, chief bridge booster, was getting increasingly hot under the collar.

“The whole tenor of this conversation is completely out of whack!” he barked. “You’re trying to cast a cloud … you’re just a bunch of—”

The cross-party committee was here to get to the bottom of why the garden bridge project has followed such an unconventional, fast-tracked process since Joanna Lumley first wrote to Johnson in 2012 with an idea for a fairytale crossing. Following a calm, level-headed line of questioning, they asked how the mayor first heard of the bridge idea; if he knew Lumley was an Associate at Heatherwick Studio [the bridge’s architect] when they met; how many meetings they’d had before the official tender was launched; why TfL’s own legal advice about how to procure the project was ignored; and why the strong criticisms of the process in the internal audit were removed.

It was a forensic grilling, aided by a weighty stack of confidential documents released after countless Freedom of Information requests, that was batted back by a combination of Boris bluster and procedural admin-speak from Brown and de Cani.

The chief contention hangs over how Heatherwick was selected for the project, and the suggestion that his scheme was a done deal from the start – which was a concern of TfL’s own legal team. “We are aware that Thomas Heatherwick has already raised with the GLA and TfL the possibility of a garden bridge,” TfL’s lawyers wrote in January 2013, in a letter giving advice for procuring “specialist design services” for the project. “Care will be needed to ensure that, particularly in relation to timing of the competition and its specification, other bidders have an equal opportunity to pull together all the relevant disciplines and to put their ideas forward.” The letter goes on to add that “it will be important to ensure that is not, and does not appear to be, the case that decisions have already been made about the proposed structures.”

The advice is crystal clear: “The procurement of the design team for the bridge will need to be subject to competition through OJEU [the EU public sector procurement mechanism].”

But that didn’t happen. Instead, TfL decided to split the process in two. In February 2013, it ran a small tender process to procure a design advisor to “help develop the concept” (which was capped at £60,000 to avoid going through the full OJEU process). Heatherwick was selected, receiving a higher score for bridge design experience than two other experienced bridge architects. His submission, which was also released as part of a FOI request, is not a feasibility study at all, but merely an elaboration of his own garden bridge design, with Lumley listed as an Associate of the studio.

Then in April 2013 a second tender was issued “to develop the technical design of the bridge, to enable a planning application to be submitted”. With a contract value of £8.4m, the process used the official TfL Engineering & Project Management Framework and went through the proper formal stages of Expression of Interest and Invitation to Tender. Engineering giant Arup was duly appointed – then subcontracted Heatherwick to its team. The contract with TfL ended in April 2015 and the project was transferred to the Garden Bridge Trust to deliver.

When pressed over why this unconventional route was chosen, as opposed to the one advised by TfL’s own lawyers, de Cani said: “The circumstances had changed. The advice was clearly not relevant because we were doing things differently.” He assured the committee that they took additional legal advice over the new process.

The original advice, he said, was given on the basis that TfL might run the project from start to finish, though that later changed. “That wasn’t the approach we adopted because there was the opportunity to get the private sector to pay for most of the project,” he said, “and that’s where the trust came forward.”

Perhaps this all sounds fair enough – unconventional and not following due process, but a pragmatic response to changing circumstances. Except that his explanation doesn’t quite tally with the timeline.

The Garden Bridge Trust was founded in October 2013: it simply didn’t exist when the tender process changed. The idea for a trust was first mentioned to the TfL board in July 2013, in the Commissioner’s report on the project. The report also specifically states that TfL would be responsible for the development and “enabling costs associated with securing the necessary consents and approvals” – ie it would run the project to planning permission stage, which is exactly what the £8.4m Arup contract represents. There was no suggestion that this stage of work would ever be handled by a private trust. And even if TfL had envisaged that the project might be handed over to a trust following planning permission being secured, this would in no way represent a “change in circumstances” around the procurement, as de Cani claims.

It might sound like a minor point of procedural detail, but it adds increasing weight to the suggestion that the entire process was rigged to allow Heatherwick’s proposal to prevail – an allegation that TfL continues to deny. Meanwhile, other questions were skimmed over with theatrical prevarications and hazy recollections. Master of misdirection, Johnson kept leading the conversation off-topic, trying to recall whether the delightful model Lumley had first shown him was made of glass or wood. Either way, it was very beautiful. And the lovely Joanna is a hugely public spirited person, who has been doing all of this for free, and doesn’t deserve to have her name dragged through the mud. And he couldn’t quite remember if she or Heatherwick had accompanied him on a 24-hour trip to San Francisco in January 2013 to try and secure sponsorship for the bridge – a trip which cost the taxpayer more than £10,000.

“You don’t start lobbying for investment in a specific scheme when it has not been selected unless you are absolutely certain of the outcome,” said committee member Caroline Pidgeon after the hearing. “When the mayor made this lengthy and expensive trip there were no official plans by TfL for a garden bridge. The tender document for an initial design of a pedestrian footbridge had not even been published. It is mockery to claim that it was an open and fair competition when the Chair of Transport for London was already flying around the world seeking investment for one proposal.”

In the huffing, puffing, insult-throwing court of Boris, the real reason for the garden bridge (and the speed at which it has been bulldozed through the system) became clearer than ever. TfL has always framed the project as a crucial transport link, not a private tourist attraction, nor a mayoral vanity project. But, bathed in a festive purple glow beneath City Hall’s chamber, Boris finally delivered his revealing pantomime soliloquy. “A great city like London has to continually refresh its offer,” he said. “It’s important that we don’t rest on our laurels, but continue to adorn the city with things that will attract visitors … and to get it done within a four-year mayoralty is a very challenging thing.”

In any sane universe, something called the Housing and Planning Bill might safely be assumed to stimulate house building and improve planning. But the bill, which receives its third and final reading in the House of Commons today, does exactly the opposite of what it says on the tin. It will exacerbate the housing crisis and further enfeeble the planning system in ways we cannot yet comprehend.

The primary assault on social housing has been much discussed in these pages. The bill’s flagship measure – promoted at ownyourhome.gov.uk – will replace genuinely affordable homes with public subsidies for property investors. Rather than building homes for affordable rent, the legislation will force local authorities to build “Starter Homes” for first-time buyers. Capped at £450,000 in London and £250,000 in the rest of England, these homes will be unaffordable for people on average incomes in over half of the country, as Shelter has pointed out. Buyers will be free to sell their assets after five years at full market value, thereby minting a new generation of property speculators and removing any long-term benefit for future first-time buyers.

In addition to this, the bill will extend Right to Buy to housing associations, further depleting the number of homes for social rent. It will also compel local authorities to sell their highest value housing stock and pass the proceeds on to central government. Given that these high value areas are already subject to the greatest pressures on affordable housing, the effect will simply be to remove resources from the places that need it most. It will see British cities divided further into segregated enclaves for rich and poor.

The bill will bring an end to secure lifetime council tenancies, replacing them with two to five-year tenancies, and force those with a total household income of over £30,000 to pay market rents – hitting low-paid working families hardest.

In short, it is a raft of misguided measures that will only increase housing inequality. As campaign group Architects for Social Housing – demonstrating outside Parliament today – puts it, the bill is “an extremely subtle and duplicitous piece of legislation that in almost every aspect does something very different, if not the direct opposite, of what it is claiming to do.”

But the planning side of the bill has yet to receive the attention it deserves, in either the Commons or the national media. The proposed changes are shrouded in a haze of intentional ambiguity, but they threaten to eat away at the last shreds of the democratic process that safeguards how our communities are made, putting power instead in the hands of developers.

The most radical measure is the introduction of automatic planning permission in principle on sites allocated for development, without applications being subject to the usual rigours of the planning process. When the idea was mooted in October, ministers suggested it would initially be limited to proposals for housing on brownfield land but nothing in the legislation prevents it from being applied to any kind of development on any site.

“It is extremely dangerous,” says Hugh Ellis, policy director at the Town and Country Planning Association. “It could apply to all forms of development – for example, fracking could easily be given ‘permission in principle’ as part of a minerals plan. You can’t make a decision in principle about a site until you know the detail of its implications, from flood risk appraisal to the degree of affordable housing. Giving permission in principle would fundamentally undermine our ability to build resilient, mixed communities in the long term.”

Ellis fears that the bill marks the introduction of a “zonal” planning system, along US lines, whereby land is zoned for particular uses at a broad-brush scale and permission granted without the finer-grain negotiation of applications on a case-by-case basis, which has always defined the English postwar planning system.

“Zoning is one of the major contributors to the economic and social segregation of cities in America,” says Ellis. “If the government is going to make such a fundamental change to the planning system there needs to be an enormous amount of public debate and research. The future of British cities is at stake here, but there’s been no white paper and no public discussion at all.”

Lack of debate seems to characterise the entire bill, which saw several crucial amendments slipped in under the radar just before Christmas. In a change that opens the door for the privatisation of the planning system, communities secretary Greg Clark added a clause in December to allow the “processing of planning applications by alternative providers”. Rather than submitting a planning application to the local authority, it suggests that developers could assign a “designated person” to process the application for them instead.

Dr Bob Colenutt, planning expert at the University of Northampton, describes the move as “iniquitous”. “It will replace a public-sector ethos with a developer-led ethos,” he says. “The ‘designated persons’ are likely to be consultants who also work for the private sector, which introduces probable bias and reduces the public scrutiny trail. And it is very likely to reduce the right that the public has to make comments on planning applications.”

In the same way that developers’ financial viability assessments have been hidden from public view, it could mean that the entire planning process happens behind closed doors, with applications assessed by private consultants, paid for by the applicants.

“The question is, what problem is this really trying to solve?” asks Janet Askew, president of the Royal Town Planning Institute. “Local authority planning departments are critically underresourced, so if it’s a question of them being too slow then the government needs to increase their capacity, not strip it away further.”

Elsewhere in the bill, if local powers aren’t being handed out to the private sector, they’re being trampled by central government. Independent planning inspectors will be bypassed in a measure that lets the secretary of state intervene in the assessment of local plans. Another clause introduces a new power that will allow the government to produce plans for areas where it deems the local authority to be “failing or omitting” to do the work.

“It is all profoundly undemocratic,” says David Vickery, a recently retired senior planning inspector. “The bill represents a significant centralisation of powers by government to micro-manage planning, without thinking through the consequences. It reads like a panicked reaction to current low housebuilding rates, and the fact that the government doesn’t trust anyone other than itself to do the job. It proves that localism is dead.”

By further diluting the planning system in the name of “cutting red tape”, the government has picked the wrong target once again: the problem isn’t with planning, but with developers sitting on land. DCLG figures show that planning permission was granted for 261,000 homes in the year ending March 2015 (against the need for at least 240,000 homes per year), but only 125,110 homes were actually built. Put simply, 136,000 more homes were consented through the local planning system than were built by house builders. And, as a recent Guardian investigation revealed, the UK’s biggest developers have a land bank big enough for 600,000 new homes. It might be an idea to get them to use it. Instead, this bill represents a wholesale power grab, transferring both housing assets and planning powers from public to private hands in a drunken festival of deregulation.

Design students have created a coat for refugees that can be reconfigured into a tent or a sleeping bag big enough to hold an adult and a child. The garment, which resembles a three-quarter length puffa jacket with a hood when worn, gives fresh meaning to the term “wearable technology”.

The brief was first suggested to the Royal College of Art in London by the clothing company Wall, and is the work of 10 master’s students between the ages of 22 and 26, who intend to crowdfund production costs and begin distributing the finished product by June.

The “wearable dwelling” is made from Tyvek, which is durable but extremely light and soft, permeable to air and water vapour and also rain-repellent. It is insulated with Mylar, a polyester film material also known as “space blanket” that is commonly used by marathon runners for protection. The garment has plenty of pockets for personal items.

“Lack of adequate, watertight shelter and warm, waterproof clothing is a major issue in refugee camps across Europe,” said Ruben van den Bossche, one of the students, who believes designers have their part to play in finding solutions to the problems faced by refugees in Europe’s biggest humanitarian crisis since the second world war. More than a million refugees arrived in Europe in 2015 – a four-fold increase on the previous year.“When people are forced to flee their homes due to conflict or persecution, they often leave with only the clothes on their backs and undertake what can be very long journeys in very difficult conditions,” said a spokesperson for the United Nations high commissioner for refugees.

“[We are] always looking at how design and technology can be used to improve our emergency response. With the proper testing, the RCA’s concept could be an innovative way to address the need for shelter for people who have lost everything.”

But Nick Harvey, of the voluntary health organisation Doctors of the World, expressed some doubts. “This garment, while being better than nothing, does not appear suitable for the harsh weather conditions many refugees face. It’s certainly not an adequate shelter for an adult and child,” Harvey said.

“It’s great that they’re trying to help. But it’s not going to be particularly effective if the temperature is minus 10 and you’re trudging through the Balkans. It looks more suitable for festival-going or possibly even for the UK homeless.”

The marketing plan for the coat is expected to include an option for festival-goers of “buy-one-for-yourself, give-one-to-a-refugee”, while its armless design is intended to prevent the garment being uncomfortable to wear in summer.

“I know that this could seem naive and fluffy,” said Harriet Harriss, senior tutor at the RCA. “But it was born out of a sense of powerlessness to help the people pouring out of Syria. As designers, we are doing what we can with what we have.”