There is a long list of policy positions that LPAC initiated or developed further from its inheritance of the Greater London Development Plan:
From Nicky’s perspective more should have been done to integrate London into the regional economy of the wider southeast. Though it was a non-statutory body SERPLAN provided a collaborative mechanism for LPAC to seek to integrate regional planning policy discussions, focusing on such issues as the overheating of the south west to the detriment of regenerating east London, affordable housing targets and infrastructure investment. Its abolition left a significant gap that subsequent arrangements never successfully replaced.
Could more have been done to encourage housing provision, particularly affordable housing by accelerating the release of brownfield land and more efficient use of existing sites? This was top of LPAC’s policy priorities in 1986, and still today new provision remains woefully inadequate to meet Londoner’s needs. How London accommodates private car (and increasingly white van) usage remains challenging despite significant investment in public transport and cycle infrastructure, with congestion levels no better than those seen in 2000. And while London made notable strides in improving recycling rates in the early 2000s, progress has stalled over the past decade and in some boroughs has actually fallen back.
Former Government and business colleagues interviewed by Nicky praised the extent and quality of LPAC’s research capability and output. The guidance was of a sufficiently high quality that it could, where appropriate, be readily turned into government policy. Lord Deben, who as Secretary of State for the Environment published the second Strategic Advice in 1996, noted how not only were the research reports credible, but they enabled government to do things in London which were seen as objective and not political.
While LPAC probably did not influence the way in which the London Housing funding programme was distributed, for Duncan Bowie (former regional Director at the Housing Federation and Principal planner for the GLA) the development of sustainable residential quality (SRQ) and all the work related to the built environment, including accessible green space, that Nicky and others worked on at LPAC were probably the most innovative elements of the original 2004 London plan.
For Robert Gordon Clark, who was there at the very start of London First, the idea of a London promotion board (London First Centre) was developed from an LPAC idea from the London: World City report (1991) and evolved through 1993 and 1994.
LPAC was at the heart of the London Pride partnership work that was running in parallel with London First campaigning from 1994 onwards. As John Hall (Executive Director of the London Pride partnership) noted, the prospectus took a London-wide view and thanks largely to LPAC’s support for holistic approaches integrated three key components in its vision – being at the leading edge of economic developments, greater social cohesion and a high quality of life.
Lord Deben concluded that LPAC did a great deal to help recover unity in London after the bitterness of the abolition of the GLC and to set out a vision as to how we could go forward as a city. While Robert Gordon Clark reflected that:
“For me the number one thing that LPAC did in that period (1986-2000), was to keep the strategic planning vision for London going…and I think that it meant that when we got the GLA, the London Plan process didn’t start with a blank piece of paper”.
This afternoon the LPAC Committee meets for the last time.
For 14 years it has been the only statutory Policy Committee creating integrated development, transport and environmental policies for London.
As a joint Committee of the London boroughs, it has advised government and the boroughs and represented London in the Southeast.
It has filled the policy gap between the GLC and the GLA.
It managed to keep the beacon of strategic planning alive for London, set up by an amendment to the Act that abolished the GLC.
And yet it was set up to fail – not even allowed a London telephone number.
It is therefore the more remarkable that it has succeeded – quietly without confrontations and headlines.
Of course it has taken time – Nicholas Ridely didn’t listen, Michael Heseltine did a bit and John Gummer did a lot. John Prescott is bequeathing it to the Mayor!
It has succeeded because its lead members – after an initial bit of party political posturing – were prepared to work together.
It developed a style of political co-operation and consensus, never using London as a political football, always going for the highest common factor – it pioneered cross-party working.
There are lessons here for the Assembly and the way it might work with the Mayor.
And there is another lesson too.
LPAC has always relied on the best available information. It has excellent staff and has consistently commissioned high quality, cutting-edge research.
I think LPAC’s greatest strength is that it has always seen the inter-relationships between different policy.
We used to call this the ‘holistic approach’. But that sounded a bit new-age so we coined the phrase ‘joined-up’ thinking – and practised it, long before it became fashionable.
But not just joined-up thinking. It was joined-up policies, actions and budgets.
This is relevant to the new authority – The Act gives it 3 joined-up purposes:
To promote economic and social development and environmental improvement.
And in a way which is integrated and balanced in order to achieve sustainable development and the health of Londoners.
This is why LPAC’s endowment is so important.
It enables the Mayor to hit the ground running, with an extensive package of well researched and up-to-date policies and mechanisms to make them happen.
The LPAC Committee is now handing over the baton of cutting edge policy making for London to the Mayor and the Assembly – who will of course have power as well as influence – proper teeth at last!
The Mayor will need to address the tough issues:
Can London find enough housing and jobs of the right kind?
Londoners want to recycle – can politicians deliver?
Reducing traffic and pollution grid-lock?
Can we make our town centres succeed?
Can the suburbs be sustainable?
How can London’s public realm and green spaces be improved?
And our endowment document sets out the research and policy recommendations to begin to tackle those challenges.
