Hello and welcome to the Better Places podcast, where we explore

the people, projects and politics shaping London's built environment.

I'm your host, Stuart One, account director and CEO.

And today we've got a brilliant conversation

lined up that touches right to the heart of how London

can meet its housing, transport and sustainability challenges all at once.

I'm woke.

I'm joined today by two people at the heart and center of this mission.

First, Graham Craig, director and chief executive of places for London.

Graham leads the team transforming London's

Transport for London's property portfolio

to deliver tens of thousands of new homes, half of which will be affordable.

Welcome Graham.

Thank you very much. It's great to be here.

Graham spent much of his career at the top of TfL and now

steers one of London's most exciting public land and development programs.

Alongside him, is Mark Walker, strategic engagement lead at places for London.

Mark joined after impressive career working within the Labor Party's

with Tom Watson, former deputy of the party, Sadiq Khan,

the Mayor of London and in senior political organizing roles across London.

Mark could see,

he brings an unrivaled experience in navigating,

local politics and community consultation, which is crucial

to winning trust and delivering projects across our capital city.

Today, we're going to explore places for London's approach

to unlocking land around, stations to build new communities.

We'll look at some of the big schemes

that bowler, Lane fosters and all the scope from which I'm familiar.

up in Enfield and how they work within boroughs

with Network Rail and communities and how they.

That's places for London.

But it's the need for social value with the challenge of generating revenue

to fund, sprawling cities transport network.

So this episode hopefully won't be too long.

with some insights.

for anyone working within, development and politics, public engagement in London.

So I guess let's get started, guys.

And thank you so much for joining us in.

we're here in, White Chapel in a quite nice, airy studio.

but it will be hopefully, for fun and, casual chat.

but I'd really like to start with you, Graham.

So, place of London is still relatively new entity with an ambitious set of goals.

I wonder if you could start by explaining your overall vision for places

for London, what role it plays with the mayor's broader strategic vision,

and why it's different from TfL's private property ventures.

Sure.

It's probably helpful if I go back to the beginning, briefly.

I mean, when I first came into property in TfL,

TfL was absolutely clear that it was a transport organization,

didn't know what it owned, didn't value what it had, didn't

have a housing program, really didn't

see itself as being, property company.

I mean, it's one of the biggest landlords and in the country.

Right. in London, yes. One of the largest.

Not the largest, but one of the largest.

It owns 5500 acres of land.

And of course, the first message to get across then is, well, if you own

5500 acres of land, your property company, whether you accept it or not.

Now you compare that with where we are now.

So we've been places for London now for 18 months.

So a brand that's aligned to TfL

but separate, distinct and places

for London was, as it happens, the first name that we came up with.

When we're thinking about a brand, we of course had to then consider 200 others.

But we came back to where we started because it describes what we're here for.

We're interested in places, and we're doing it not just in London,

but for London. London has many challenges.

And of course, first and foremost amongst those is a lack of affordable housing.

And as long as we within this entity remember that we're we're here

to serve TfL, we're here to serve London, then we're not going to go far wrong.

also for the last,

three years

we've been financially separate from TfL.

So we now take no funding from TfL,

no, operating revenue from TfL, no capital from TfL.

So all the money that TfL got it can invest in the transport net network.

Our job is to work with commercial funders, commercial partners

to bring forward homes,

work space, infrastructure on the land that we own.

All the profit we make flows back into transport for London.

but we're absolutely here with a clear social purpose to do what we can

to address the challenges that the capital faces.

That's really interesting.

I think if we could just probe a little

for anyone listening to this.

So, just cognizant of,

the TfL and some of the challenges it's had since the pandemic,

that was probably a conscious decision

that was made to separate, its two funding models.

Why is it because, property's

so risky and this is the circumstances that, place London.

I mean, or does it allow your organization to go a lot bolder in

achieving some of your targets to deliver those tens of thousands of new homes?

it's as simple as when the pandemic struck.

TfL lost 95% of its income overnight.

you know, we saw numbers on the underground

that were lower than we've seen since Queen Victoria was on the draw.

It was important that the transport network was freed up

so that those, workers who had to get to

work were able to do so,

minimizing the risk of infection for those people.

So TfL want from went from encouraging people to take public transport

to asking people other than those who absolutely had to to stay off it.

No, that, of course, imposed, immediate

significant financial burden on the organization.

It had to go through a long period

in which it had no certainty of funding whatsoever.

I think the shortest at TfL had was a funding deal that lasted two weeks.

Now, in the context of running TfL's transport network,

that's pretty much an impossible task or property portfolio

because on the yeah, it's so from a property point of view,

we're kind of faced because TfL barely had enough money to run

a transport network, certainly didn't have the money to invest in property.

So it's a fairly stark choice, really.

It was.

Do we have a far sale of assets at the worst possible time,

or do we say, actually, in the midst of all this, there's

an opportunity, opportunity here to do something innovative,

which is creating a commercial property company

that takes no money from TfL is able actually to plan long term

because we're not dependent on public sector funding.

So actually offers the ability

to do more, be more strategic.

yeah.

Plan longer term,

knowing that all the money that we make flows back into the transport

network, but we're not diverting any funding whatsoever

from the core purpose of TfL, which is transport.

transport for London agreed to all that.

City Hall agreed to it.

The then government agreed to it.

I think it has been seen to be a success.

and I certainly think that we are in a much, much better position now

as a consequence of the decisions made at that time.

But in, in operating in such a,

In an open, in such an environment

that you, essentially set up by the government all the food.

How are you square in,

one direction that was set by the mayor's office

and then also work in national government because I could bring in, Mark here,

essentially, my question is, who's setting your political ambitions?

You got half of those 10,000 homes that you wish to deliver will be affordable.

Is that a political ambition?

Was that an ambition?

based on the need that London has?

I mean, I think regardless of who

the government is, I think it's clear what the housing crisis is.

So for us, in terms of the political direction,

I think the challenges London

faces are clear, regardless of who's in power,

I think we're very proud of the fact that we're part of the JLA family,

and we work closely with, not only the mayor,

but the deputy mayors, both the transport, housing, to make sure

we're kind of aligning ourselves with that agenda.

I suppose we're at a rare window

now where we have kind of, synergy fuel yet,

amongst government and, and the GLA, and that's certainly helpful.

But I think, as a public body, we have to be,

adaptable to whatever those winds change.

And so therefore, I think, as I said, I don't think the ambitions,

or the challenges, should I say that we face necessarily change.

because I think everyone's clear on what the challenges for London are.

Yeah.

I think it's very important the

we don't see affordable housing as some thing that's imposed on us.

It's something that as a major London landowner,

we have to recognize the challenges that this city faces.

We all know, you know, the stats about on average,

one child in every classroom, in temporary accommodation.

I think for me, for Mark, for everyone in the team,

part of the reason why we're here is because we want to address those things,

not because we're told to, but because we're in a, you know,

a very privileged position to be able to do something

meaningful to address the challenges that this the this city has.

And I'm going to zoom in to some of your flagship projects.

But just to kind of, stress on this point a little, it's more because

lots of my clients and lots of investors probably look to you for certainty.

And I guess while you may have a kind of overarching political direction

that you following, I guess it's what is the message to some investors

or those who are looking to you to, to to think, will your targets change?

Will your ambitions change or your mission change?

What was your message be to them?

for as long as I'm here, the targets won't change.

as the person who has,

created

led places for London, I'm absolutely clear about the fact

that our job is to understand and address

the challenges in the round that this city faces.

and, you know, ultimately, we're talking about building homes, workspace,

infrastructure, amenity

around the public transport network in London.

I mean, that's as good

a portfolio as you'll find pretty much anywhere in the world.

You know, for me, the so, I mean, that absolutely goes alongside

the opportunity of this job is the responsibility of recognizing,

and meeting the challenges.

partly on us of pan London basis.

But it's also about recognizing that London is, you know,

a whole patchwork of individual villages and towns and cities.

So the right answer for cock fosters isn't the same as the right answer

for school or South Kane, or more certainly get into those and

and obviously navigating that.

But I do think just to pick up on a point about the targets.

So one other thing it's worth thinking about from,

if you're thinking from the built environment community looking at is that

I suppose we're ambitious in a sense if the targets are set out,

but we're also ambitious in the sense that we're alive to the fact that we have

we are uniquely placed in terms of our landholding.

So there's other opportunities to solve some of our London's problems.

So we're not

so at the moment,

grandma, talking to the NHS, obviously, like you mentioned in your intro

to, to work with Network Rail and stuff like that.

So wherever we can look to use our land to solve the wider issues on the face

rather than just a housing crisis, I think we're we're alive to that as well.

So I think we are uniquely placed in that sense.

Can I make one other point that I'm legally bound to make?

These are your talks to you guys.

But, please, the disclaimer,

we're

also here to make money for transport for London.

so we have a target return 7.5%.

That's what we have to make.

and that flows back to transport for London to invest in the transport network.

So all the good things that we do, we're proud of that.

We're ambitious.

We also have to recognize these are public assets.

TfL needs long term investment.

And one of the strong core reasons for setting up places for London in

the first place is to make sure that we're in a position to optimize,

the financial return that flows back, to our shareholder.

And I think that's a good segue into one of the schemes

that you're looking to progress now, though, the lane in Acton,

took us through that development.

What is it?

What's the what's the vision for it?

And how do you hope that that reinvestment, could

potentially improve the lives of people in and around, that part of Ealing,

I have many favorite schemes.

You would say that only.

But, yeah, one of them is

Lane is certainly, certainly

one of the most important schemes.

I should also begin by saying that

over the years I've made a few mistakes.

One of the mistakes that I made was assuming

that developers could do things better than we could.

now we had more recently, but historically we've had some mean.

So it's quite consider is that because of private expertise or

what what makes your you and your team of specialists,

able to bring forward a scheme as good as this one?

I thought there was a time

when private sector developers, would be able to do stuff that we can't.

And undoubtedly there are some things that, we can't replicate,

certainly across the breadth of what we do within places.

But both Elaine and Mark was instrumental in this,

along with Patricia and the planning team, within places.

That's a scheme that we got planning on ourselves.

And it's a better scheme than would have been obtained

by any private sector developer.

yeah.

I think that increasingly I understand

the actually addressing the challenges that London faces

is about adults coming together and sorting stuff.

And critical to that are the adults

from the public sector, the major landowners working together?

Yes, of course, with commercial funders, commercial developers,

commercial comms and engagement agencies and others.

But actually we've got access to rooms that other people don't.

We can sit down and set out a vision

for a site like Ball Lane,

which isn't focused on short term shareholder return.

Boler Lane is 900 homes, an investment

in improving the local transport infrastructure.

It's 50% affordable housing.

You know, it's something that we can feel proud of.

It's something that we can get behind.

we had very positive engagement,

from Ealing.

Very positive engagement from the Gli.

You know, we worked collectively with those parties

in order to to bring forward that scheme.

We were then able to take that to market.

and Barratt London,

was successful in the competition.

And the other significant part about that

was, as well as us getting planning on ourselves,

was the recognition that actually

in identifying joint venture partners,

the relationships important and the effort you put into the relationship.

So why would you go through all that effort just for one site?

So Boler Lane is the seat site for our West London partnership,

and we will end up bringing forward thousands and thousands of homes,

with Barratt London taking the relationship,

the experience from that site and then feeding that engine,

with other sites across west west London.

You know, Mark, your career has taken you form political organizations in your time

with, former deputy labor leader Tom Watson and the Khan

just touching on that, you mentioned that green, that

you guys have access to people and, and rooms

and perspectives that really helps you shape these schemes.

On the mark.

How's your background helped to influence the way you approach public

and engagement and stakeholder relationships,

and how does that complement the critical planning expertise that you mentioned?

Patricia, was working

on, but also that development expertise that Graham and Lewis

the team bring to for.

Yeah, it's a good question.

I mean, won't come as a surprise to you.

I, I tend to look upon all my work as a campaign,

whether it's this campaign or a new to me.

Actually, Mark, I've.

Or who, who doesn't know?

Mark. Mark, come out first.

When I was 16, knocking on doors, in our native Enfield.

And he taught me one thing, which is everything's a campaign.

Everything is a campaign.

So if you.

So I

no different from thinking, well, the election's on this day,

and I'm going to work backwards to the day,

I think, planning committees on this date.

I'm going to work back from that day

and understand what the client well, what are the key milestones I want to hit?

And I think there is, always a challenge, inasmuch as you're going to have

the kind of Nimby aspect of, the community that that we all face,

regardless of the scheme, wherever you are, wherever you are,

Sherlock Holmes, I'm not, as it transpires this week, and I think that I think,

but I like a great example where we like like we say in politics, bait, kill.

So early engagement, like I mentioned with the, local authority

with the GLA, making sure you're having those conversations are understanding,

but making sure that you're marrying back to the community what they want.

So but I was a great example where you had this, like, strip, quite

an awkward strip of land that TfL owned that runs along kind of the railway line.

On the other side, you had acting, acting gardens, which was,

kind of a clunky housing estate regeneration.

Now, the tempting thing for us would be to come along and just see that

as a continuation to stick a load more houses, er, let it mirror

what's across the road and have a scheme that would kind of that fit that parcel.

But as a, as an organization we didn't want to do that.

And, and as Graham says, it's credit to the planners of the team

that actually they really looked upon it as a fresh approach.

And they reimagined the kind of stretch a road down, Barlow Lane itself

from Widen the Path, started

creating some kind of community back office in that kind of way.

And that's before we started worrying too much about the buildings.

And straight away then the community.

Okay, I live here, I'm a resident here, and this is all so for me,

rather than going,

oh, that's something that's being built, it won't be, it won't benefit me.

And that was really, really important, really understanding

that kind of what the community needed and being able to deliver that.

And then likewise with the design of the buildings,

I appreciate designs, a subjective thing and

I'm always

I'm all for trying to get out of the planning system,

but equally to come along with with ideas for buildings that were different

from each other, even within the scheme, as well as those across

it, gave it a real stamp of, independence and approval.

And I think that really helped help with the process.

Now, I know this from ownership looks like clients

that it can often feel that the comms and just engagement people are a burden.

They're always finding new ways of, shaping the scheme

that may be under some financial pressures or viability pressures.

I wonder

how did the work that Marc did in going in really early in the early conversations

that you were having with local authority and in trying to shape Bowler Lane?

did you find that

the feedback that he was giving you was actually quite helpful in finding,

shaping bowler Lane into, into, into what is to do?

it was not just useful, but absolutely essential.

I, I mean, again, we're we are

we sounds tribal. Kind of.

We're here to serve.

We're here to deliver what it is that local communities one.

And if Mark is having early engagement

and understanding directly locally,

what is it that this scheme needs to look and feel like,

then of course, we're going to respond to it. This

this can't work.

If we sit in an office in central London and just,

you know, take a cookie

cutter approach to what we're going to be doing across London.

It has to begin with what's the context, what's the need.

And the more we understand that, the more likely we are to secure planning.

But it's even then not simply about getting.

Planning, of course, is actually going to

is about building something that's going to stand the test of time.

And I'm resolutely of the view that if you do the right thing,

the commercials will follow.

If you take a narrow, short term commercial point of view,

it's not even going to optimize.

From a purely commercial point of view, you do the right thing, and

everything else will then will,

follow you all but the longevity of schemes.

And I know that

sustainability is particularly important, especially in the place that London.

can you explain how you really sought

to integrate sustainability into your proposals?

And of course, one of the cardinal aspects, and I know this

when I'm looking for new build flat to potentially when you move into,

that reduction of car usage is essential to this, to the work

that you're doing there.

what's the thought process behind it?

Was sustainability so key.

And, what is the mayor's vision for, let's call this, London.

there's a lot to unpack in that.

So from a place's point of view, we've got,

a sustainable development framework.

So every scheme that we bring forward,

there's just under 100 KPIs that we look at.

and for those hundred KPIs we drill into and seek to make sure

that we're focused on international leading practice.

We're not an organization that, again, simply

looks to meet whatever the minimum policy standards are.

We want to do the best.

Now, as a consequence of that, as a consequence of the Scdf,

as we call it, we were ranked by grasp last year

as the most sustainable property developer in the UK.

in the top half dozen in Europe.

and we're proud of that.

Again, not simply from a awards point of view because it

but because it recognizes the effort that we put into

making sure that what we're doing is truly sustainable.

And, for example,

you know, the cost that our residents will incur long term from energy,

which is obviously increasingly expensive and increasingly important.

We are thinking about it from our long term residents point of view.

We're also, as an organization, part of transport for London.

there's a mayor's transport strategy and that sets, ambitious targets

in terms of sustainable modes of transport.

combining those

two within places for London, we operate,

TfL 75 car parks across London.

Now, those car parks

generate significant ongoing revenue for us,

but ultimately is the person who's responsible for them.

Well, there is a role for car parking around transport,

hubs in London.

But certainly when I was thinking about there and when we were looking

at some of those outlying car parks,

the majority of people using them live well outside London.

That's the thing that's always struck me.

And terms of work on the cop forces, station,

which for those who don't know, it's in the northern, north western end.

Food.

Some people traveling as far as Cambridge, Peterborough even further,

just to get into a can, I guess I drive, but that seems like a long way to

for one to travel that sort of been utilized by the locals.

Yeah.

So you know, I, I get the this is contentious.

It's probably,

we'll get into it, and it's questions on, cop forces and on the screw.

But I'll let you finish.

it's contentious.

I know it's contentious.

One of the most contentious things that we do.

But I firmly believe that

as an organization that owns the assets, we do protect their own stations.

We should be striving to maximize the benefit for London

as a consequence of every square foot that we own.

And I fear from the individuals

who drive those long distances, driving past

multiple Network Rail stations in order to come to the end of the tube network.

Now I use the tube network every day.

I understand why for some people it might be cheaper,

it might be more convenient, but ultimately us

encouraging people to drive longer with the congestion

impacts the air quality impacts, the carbon impacts of that.

You won't be surprised to know that.

I think that building homes, particularly affordable homes

in the most sustainable location

immediately next to the transport network, makes a hell of a lot more sense

than encouraging people to drive those long distance as it does.

you know, I have to say I'm a keen car driver and a big advocate,

but I think that the

there is a rationale there and it makes sense, frankly,

going into Cop forces and on a scale that have both been controversial,

it's, fair to say

what were some of the specific challenges of question to both and probably

bring in Mark first or the specific challenges

those two schemes that they faced in planning and public perception?

And how were you squaring those holes and making the argument,

to those who didn't quite understand the need to build new homes on

those car parks?

Yeah, I think, you know, I think it's a mind shift.

I think it's it's there's no one better in London to kind of meet this challenge.

And us, we we own the land and around station.

So we have to be careful, be the drivers of this kind of the change in mindset,

in terms of how how we operate, how we get around our city and,

I think you're right.

We did.

We do a car park survey.

We've done them wherever,

we look to kind of meet this challenge head on.

And it's outstanding.

Like where I, where I live in Redbridge, we had the same thing.

We have people driving in from Essex with, obviously cock fuss is a pretty.

I know quite well from previous life.

and yeah, the people are driving an awful long way,

but I think it's about reassuring the kind of local politicians these aren't

your electorate that are driving here to to part.

These are people that are driving in.

They're not going to be

we've got to help move them on to other, more sustainable forms of transport.

And I think it's difficult.

It's difficult because people are used to their cars.

They're driving it.

It's all wrapped up in people's sense of independence

and getting around and stuff like that, and it feels like you're

you're taken away.

But unfortunately, when you look back in 15, 20, 30 years time,

you'll notice this was the right decision.

But it just takes time to evolve, and people need to get

their mind around the concept and I think as well,

the transport system has to therefore meet their needs as well.

It's no good taking people's cars away.

And then they arrive at a station and there's not enough trains

or that they're not clean and they're not, efficient.

And I think that we're, we're alive to that as well.

And, and therefore, like Graham

said at the beginning, it's, it's our job to, to to finance that transport network.

They go hand in hand that that the extra revenue

then that then creates a better transport system.

So it's not quite necessary to have to scale it at people

necessarily thought it was.

but again, yeah, I don't think there was

any challenges in terms of the, the process that wasn't,

as you would expect, any kind

of scheme in the city in terms of people not liking development, high

housing mix, all of those kind of same challenges that we always have

other than the fact that, yeah, like you say, all those people

are not going to park on my street, they're going to park in my roads.

You're moving the problem for a lot of why and stuff for that.

But what what has proven to be the case in Blackhorse Road and,

where there was a car park before is actually once that car parks closed

and people find alternate transport methods, they don't go back.

So even if you reopened the car park, people

then don't go back to driving, because at that point

they're used to catching a train

from Hertford or Stevenage or wherever they've come from.

So it's not dissimilar to debates around smoking or wearing

a seatbelt or stuff that over time, people get used to the change.

But you have to be the one that drives it.

And I appreciate it's not easy in the first instance.

Indeed, and I think what I'd

be interested in to understand is

how could you give me any examples of any proposals

that you've worked on in which you successfully argued?

And it's been a smooth ride through the planning process?

around the benefits, the, the new homes, the inscriptions,

the intrinsic social value in being for those new homes and

any carrots, also any incentives that you've laid in place, the narrative

that you've, shared, have brought some naysayers along with you.

I'm struggling to

think of any that have been straightforward.

and I'm not sure it should be.

I mean, ultimately, we're introducing

change, significant change to local areas.

I like you.

You know, you sit through many conversations

in which people talk about how the planning system has to change.

It's not perfect, but I'm very, very happy to work with it

as it is where we're held to a high standard.

but that feels right to me

as a major strategic landowner

that wants to invest in London, it's right and proper that

there should be a mechanism to make sure that we're doing the right thing.

and people get understandably

very emotional about it.

the only way in which we can deal with that is set out the data,

set out the facts, set out a vision for,

you know, London as it needs to evolve.

and I'm, you know, I'm proud of the work the, the team does.

I think we've got an increasingly strong team,

that is able to work with partners across London to set out,

what it is that we're seeking to achieve on a local level

as well as a pan London level.

And remember, of course, the on every scheme we are delivering

substantial affordable housing workspace, affordable workspace.

We are investing in local communities, we're investing in skills.

we're about to train our 10,000th person in construction skills.

Well, because we know that we've got

literally decades of development on land that we own.

So why wouldn't we invest to make sure that people in London get the

the training, the opportunity in order to take advantage of,

that work that we're helping to create.

So we're nothing if not focused, on doing the right thing.

And of course, we'll always look on those grove, Cork,

Foster's building and everywhere else to understanding what are those

local transport improvements that we can make at the same time as setting out

clearly that all the profit that we make gets reinvested in the transport network.

So I think we've got as good a case as anyone.

that doesn't mean that we get anything other

than being held to a high standard, but that's not something that I struggle with.

I think the tangible transport improvements is a really important point

the Graham makes, and the fact that our schemes

can help unlock issues around debt free access and stuff like that.

But I think a really good example,

if you agree, of where where I've had, I'd massive impact.

Much wider would be the economy place mechanism. Yeah.

Well that's going to come on to barking sighs a crack.

An example where we solved so many problems in our area.

I've just bought a development.

Not only did we tackle the housing crisis by bringing forward that

100% affordable scheme, anyone that knows yeah,

you come out of barking side, you'd be greeted by builders yard,

very very narrow street, poorly lit and stuff

like that beyond the kind of reach of TfL in that sense.

However, now you're opening up to a massive forecourt, much better lit.

It's not a builder's yard, it houses so dramatically.

That means there's more people around natural surveillance.

And so there's a phrase that kicks in when you. Exactly.

And that.

So I'm tremendously proud of the work there because it's completely changed

the arrival.

We hear that word a lot in the built environment, the arrival of of when you

when you come out a bark inside station and the whole place feels safer.

It feels better.

I feel like that with what a fantastic scheme that

that that gives so much back to the community.

Absolutely. And, you know, it's one where

it had been quite easy

to would have probably made more money.

Just bringing it forward is, industrial site.

But again, you're thinking you've got land.

Could immediately adjacent to the transport network and bringing forward

98 100% affordable

units next to the transport network is for me,

it's very easy to be blasé about this stuff.

You know, you spend a lot of time

looking at spreadsheets, but ultimately, what we're doing

is giving thousands, tens of thousands of people, ultimately

a front door, a roof over their head, giving people the single

most important thing to change people's life chances.

Why wouldn't you try and do that to the maximum extent you can?

Yeah.

No, I mean, I believe in grime setting, I forget.

Anyway, Graham's done a tremendous amount of work

in terms of making sure that we have dedicated members of the team.

Lucy, Ashley in our job, does a fantastic job of,

the play spaces for women and young girls and stuff like that.

So it's, it's really noble that that that real thought and consideration different.

We do. It's really important.

Can I just build on that just because I think again, I know

we're not the only people who do it, but for us it's absolutely core.

It really well and it's something that I've been following so much

and why I've invited you on because it is a real story too.

So, yeah,

for us, it's always about not simply thinking

within the red line of what it is that we own

as an organization that's wholly owned by TfL.

We're acutely aware of the fact that

for people who are moving

into one of our developments, their front door

effectively starts on the platform of the station.

So of course, when thinking about placemaking,

when thinking about, safety,

we're going to think about

something that goes beyond the development itself.

And Lucy, as Mark,

you know, rightly highlights,

is doing continue to do a fantastic job.

just making sure that we're all held to account

so that the quality of what we bring forward will,

you know, ultimately serve the people who live and work

on our developments and certainly ultimately ensure that,

those those development standards stand the test of time.

And, you know, I think that's a good segue into the new concept

that we've been discussing here, which, when you call, we pinned, to an article,

for the Fabian Society, although it's the local government

and housing Policy group, which is always a good, acronym.

But it was around the success of international examples like New Zealand,

in concentrated development around things that they refer

to as station development zones.

Talking about working within the red lines.

We live in a great country and it has a, a phenomenal history

of building incredible things, but it is a very complex system to navigate.

I wonder if there are any international examples of similar approaches

that you could think of that London could benefit from, and the pieces

for London not actively and practically trying to, push that.

our regional national government implement,

I spend as much time as I can, which still isn't enough

looking to see what's happening elsewhere in the world.

And that's both learning from others

and sharing with others

what it is that we're up to.

So I, for example, working with the,

Fcdo went to Kenya for a week recently,

sharing with the Kenyan government what it is we've done within places

for London and the benefits as we see them,

of doing development, our own stations

and the sorts of infrastructure that it takes to make that happen.

I've had

calls recently, with colleagues from Toronto,

Hong Kong, Singapore, Sydney,

the answer, as you would expect,

is there is an any one city that solved this.

And, we obviously looked at the zoning in New Zealand.

And on the face of it, the significant success

that has had both in terms of unlocking development

and then directly,

improving access to housing.

but I haven't seen any one thing that you just want to pick up

and drop on London, but I think it's definitely a bit beholden on us

and the industry more broadly, not to sit back and imagine the,

within London or within the UK.

We've got all the answers.

In fact, even I think one thing that I hold myself to account for

is the fact that I spend much more time talking to other cities

around the rest of the world than I do

other cities elsewhere in the UK.

I try to when I can, but I, I think we could definitely do

more learning from each other, across the UK.

And it's not about,

endeavoring to drop

a solution like places for London elsewhere.

It's about understanding what's the local context, what's the

what's the local needs, and how can we all learn from each other in terms of,

oh, we'll all get some things right, we'll get some things wrong.

But the more we share, the more successful jointly.

Ultimately we will end up, being.

I don't think it would be a surprise.

I when you say grand to see the places kind of model

start rolling out in other cities.

Specialist devolution kind of moves up the political spectrum even more.

When you see the kind of like the the work Andy Burnham done in Manchester

and stuff like that, it seems like a natural success.

yes. Well,

the only reason for me posing is as someone who's been immersed

in this for a decade, there is nothing that we've done.

That to me is an obvious, logical, sensible.

But you would say that there's, you know, clearly.

Have you clearly found

a formula of building homes?

And like you said, there's some schemes that could make

TfL and, one public purse a little better,

but you're still looking at where there's social good,

and able to bring down the cost of housing,

I think, to the Auckland example that you touched on,

what made that unique was it was a clear example,

of increasing supply and seeing

a slowing down of cost of housing, both for rents and for people buying.

So I think to Mark's point, what lessons in your experience,

in your time is flooding in elsewhere?

Have you seen your tangible examples of where you can bring down

the cost of housing in a sustainable way,

but one that includes access for people who would otherwise afford it?

I cannot claim that even if we developed all of

all of the places for London's estate,

that will by ourselves be able to bring down, the cost of housing.

What I can absolutely say is that in particular,

if the rest of the public sector sort.

So if we can collectively sort ourselves out.

I mentioned earlier, the adults in the room,

there are a relatively small number major land owners, largely

in the public sector, who I am

keen work evermore closely to together.

Each of us thinks beyond the red line of what we own.

each of us recognizes that you can't solve

every problem at every site, but you know, you can make money on some locations.

That helps to offset higher social value,

higher levels of afford affordable housing elsewhere.

But everywhere has to make everywhere has to work.

Everywhere has to be, a mix.

Everywhere has to be focused on what's the right solution

for that location, but also to have the ability to stand back

and then say that in the context of a challenging economic environment

in which we know, you know, we've got a spending review

coming up, but we know there's not going to be

all the money that we need to address housing.

We know there's not going to be all the money that we need to address

transfer infrastructure.

Our health care infrastructure is there.

And I think,

a moral obligation for us

as major public sector landowners to work with commercial partners

in order to maximize the wider

public benefit that we can deliver on the land that we own.

And the more we do that in a joint way, the more we do that and a long

term, focused, ambitious way, the more likely we are to be a a success.

And that is a there's a core, that I think Professor Greg

Clarke has used before about,

London is a negotiated city.

I think that, that's a good one.

I don't think this is something that's going to be imposed on us.

I think this is about us city hall, boroughs,

Network Rail, other parties working collectively together

with commercial developers in order to get this done.

Thank you. And, Mark, you touched on this.

Well, what conversations have been had, mind you,

and I know that you work across the political spectrum, and it's not just,

those in the national government or regional government.

Do you think

that we know we're not getting more money, but,

What?

Yeah.

What what conversations

are happening at the moment to really accelerate housebuilding?

And what creative thinking do you, are you hearing about,

that are being proposed and some of these, white papers,

to accelerate and catalyze, the housing that we need.

I mean, I, I mean,

it's it's fundamentally about the levers that government can pull.

It doesn't necessarily need to be about money in the first instance.

Appreciate money would make a lot of the problems go away.

But where the money doesn't exist, there are levers

that can be pulled through the planning process.

And I'm pretty sure everyone is listening to this.

Certainly distances for the length of time we we in chat will appreciate the,

the the process that's holding up current applications

and, and the 40 odd weeks he's taken, etc., etc.

but I think that the, why why I think there is a risk

that the conversation at times focuses too much on fairness in the market

and actually what brings the price of down is demand fundamentally.

So if we can get stuff built, it's not on us

to be the sole provider of the solution.

But we can certainly be part of the solution and we're keen to do that.

But until we managed to get the homes built,

then we're not going to actually be able to have a real grownup

conversation around, how you how you solve the, the wider housing market.

So I think there is a, there is a growing need for some of the kind of

the levers around government to be pulled that will makes the process easier.

Appreciate it does not without fix you still need manpower, etc.

in terms of process and applications and

certainly anything coming to safety

should not be compromised by, by a, by one inch.

so I think that listening and and speaking to

to senior politicians and stuff, it's clear that there that that works

being done to make sure the process lever even if the money is not there sir

at the moment to to find the kind of quick solution,

can I just say that

the single most helpful thing that this government did on coming in,

which is talking positively about the fact that homes need to be built in mute

music, is so important. Yes, that's something I've learned.

Certainly in the private sector, if there's no confidence in the market,

then any story that you tell will

just be hit back with, doubts and worries.

Yeah.

Not least because it it gives voice to those people who

often will not have the time

to turn up to a planning committee or an engagement event.

We know that those people who, who are more time rich,

we know that those people who have a home

are more likely to turn up to object.

those people who are trying to juggle 2 or 3 jobs in order to get onto

the housing ladder are much less likely to be able to turn up.

I think just hearing it said loudly

and clearly that we need to build more homes

is extraordinarily helpful thing for all of us who are in this industry.

You mentioned cock fosters and I know scroll.

We heard examples there and elsewhere where

local MPs thankfully no longer MPs, have come out

squarely against the notion that we need to build homes.

just getting the understanding that homes need to be built.

We're very, very happy to engage on

the massing design.

You know, all of that stuff we're happy to engage with. It's

it's difficult to engage with someone

who doesn't even recognize the the we need homes.

One interesting thing,

going back to the boiler example, actually, you touched upon,

it felt to me a little because some of the Bollo consultation

took place during the pandemic,

so I had to quickly rethink how we would do it in the webinars.

And exactly that.

The, the, the, the church hall boards are

and I feel sadly to me, a little bit as a, as a comms sector

within the built environment is that we've almost just gone back to that.

Yeah.

And, and for some of us, I've, and I just feel like

if you're going to really engage in, if you're really going to speak

to the people that need the houses in the future, invest in the community

future, not not just the people that are trying to pull up the ladder.

How do you speak to those people?

And I it makes me sad, almost when I think about the

we made massive strides Apollo because we had to think about how we can solve it.

So we did it in lots of different ways, like you say,

using webinars, using different forms of technology and stuff like that.

And now I feel like we've almost gone back to the point where

we're we're running out of church hall when those people are coming up.

And, and I think it's something that we're, we're keen to do at places

to make sure that we are really doing everything we can to make sure

that many people are engaged as possible when we go through these processes.

And, you know, in closing, I think there was a forward look here.

last you questions individually as we look ahead.

Mark, so do you think

after five years in the role, what have you found

to be the most valuable lessons in terms of community engagement?

Well, you touched on it.

but what is the future?

What does the future look like for community engagement?

and communication and how those lessons help

you shape your future strategies to really get

to those who are less likely to engage a cross-section.

And yeah, I know it's a big question, but no, no, I mean,

the first rule of politics is learn how to count.

So I can't lie,

my concern is how many people are going to say

yes on the planning committee, and I have to.

I'd be being disingenuous if I said that wasn't a concern of mine.

And in my in my previous life, obviously I would I would spend hours

and hours in Sobek Hall or Broad House or whatever to take you back to them

in either, poring over, demographic data and, and how to best target black.

I think the

solution is in my, my five year experience is

getting the compromise in the room.

And what I mean by that is the NIMBYs and the people want development

where you can help them both understand the compromises that need to come about.

Okay, so where you've got and to be fair to Dan Tomlinson,

he's done a terrific job in this in High Barnet.

You have to let everyone understand that we need to develop these homes.

That's a given.

They're not not going to be developed, but getting everyone in a room together,

helping understand the challenges that the fact that the the height pays

for particularly excellent playground or you can have less of that

but you you then you need to satisfy all of those kind of challenges.

No one believes you if it's just the developer saying it.

Everyone, everyone believes you're being disingenuous.

Let the two groups talk.

Talk to each other.

And I said, where possible, you want to create an environment for that debate.

You want to create informed discussion and let them people understand

each other's needs, each other's concerns, and then come to a solution.

That's right.

That's that's what I think the future is for engagement.

Quite.

The answer can always be no.

Yeah. And it's what does this look like.

And exactly because we are going to progress.

And ultimately the thing that strikes me and I've delivered leaflets

across, the south of England also, across the country

is will come up against a new build housing development.

The may the model will come out that the door and I'll see what I'm doing

and I'll tell them that about a scheme I'm working on next door.

And the immediate response is, oh, I don't want new housing.

I sometimes have to remind people that you're stood in one just there.

So it's me, you know,

how do you ensure that the answer isn't always no?

And what does a compromise like that you look like?

Yeah. And and.

Yeah.

And that and that has to come from the people that live around them,

that they reflect each other rather than ask you turn up and then

move back to or get on the train back to as nearer to Westminster,

a lateral idea who's going to get across to them at some point?

Graham to close, with you, we haven't really touched much

on private partnerships or partnerships on the place London, may touch on.

I know that you're talking about, about a bit earlier.

Looking ahead, what is next for places for London?

Is it that,

and are there any particular projects, locations that you're excited about?

and what's your kind of closing message?

I'm going to give you a few few minutes, if you will.

so for our listeners who've taken the time to listen to us one on,

well done for anyone

who's, lasted out this long,

the next 12 months, by a distance,

the most important within places for London.

by a distance, the busiest.

bear with me.

Just want to run through for a minute what we're doing this year,

and then I'll that. Then I'll talk about the future.

So we've got schemes that will be completing,

Fennec at barking side

next phase of Wembley Park.

we will be starting,

Tupelo Lane, the, main site there.

we will be going in for planning for

Edgware, 3365 homes,

Earls court, 4000 homes.

will be going in for planning at High Barnet.

300 homes,

Woolwich OSD 500 homes.

will be continuing with our commercial office

scheme above Bank station, which has just started.

ten King William Street

will be starting on site at our next commercial office at Paddington.

Will be starting our fresh student scheme at Suffolk.

will have completed our first

ultra

rapid electric vehicle charging hub at Hatton Cross.

That's going to be the first of 65.

we will be completing the asset management investment,

significant investment, just down the road at White Chapel.

we'll be bringing forward, reconditioned

archers will look fantastic at Kilburn

major schemes also Wood Lane, Baker Street.

You know, we're investing hundreds of millions of pounds across London,

bringing forward literally dozens of schemes

that will transform the city for decades to come, doing everything that I've said

in terms of social value, afford affordable housing,

local investment, community engagement.

We'll also be bringing forward with Network Rail, opportunities

with Network Rail on one and a half times what we do in London alone.

brilliant opportunities working with them.

at places like, Waterloo,

Victoria, Woolwich town Center and elsewhere.

And for me, the future is everything

that we're talking about from a place's point of view.

We can look over the fence and see what the real opportunity here is.

If the public sector gets itself together, it gets organized.

It works in a more ambitious, strategic, collaborative way,

working with commercial partners where up to nine

nine joint ventures, increasingly

those, multi-site, multi-decade joint ventures, I think,

I said earlier, I've made lots of mistakes, but we've learned a lot as well.

And we are very happy to work with anyone

who shares the values we've got, the ambitions that we've got

from making this city a better place to live and to work,

and whether those people are in the private sector, the public sector,

we will sit down.

I will sit down at any stage with anyone

who wants to work with us to make all of this happen.

That's an incredible outro, I have to say.

And,

you know

that actually the very best of luck with student schemes, I have to say, even

see some of the low lines that you've talked about.

Because I know,

because the students actually, I think one of the most compelling argument

is it will free up, especially in inner cities, more traditional forms of housing.

Yes, it does then turn to HMOs, which is a model that works for some people,

but for others, and particularly those who are having to move out of London

with the people, place planning, crisis that we're facing,

hopefully some more family size housing, will be able to let or by

and I think last year both of you in a sentence

what drives you about the impact about what you do in the places of London?

And, again, to close a message about the future of what London can be.

I mean, I'm tremendously proud to work for places.

I'm tremendously proud to be part of the TfL family.

I guess the the fact that we can solve

or help solve so many of the problems that we face as a city.

I'm immensely proud to be from East London.

I've emphasized that East, but, I, I am

you have to every day to come into work and to think about the challenges

that we face as a city and play a role in help solving them.

You have more than enough motivation to be in at 9:00 every morning.

Grim.

I was brought up in Edinburgh, spent ten years living in Bristol.

I'm now in London.

I, I can't imagine being anywhere else.

London is just great to see you on a for me.

Exactly.

Anywhere else would feel like a step down.

we've got the ability to shape London, make London a better place.

I have got one of the best jobs in this city.

like Mark.

Incredibly proud of what it is that we're doing.

London's best days are ahead.

we want to work with people who want to make that happen.

Thank you so much.

And having listed all of those, honestly, I don't know how

how you have so much time in the day, but particularly to spend it, here with us

so that is all we have time for on this episode of the Best Places podcast.

And a huge thank you to Graham and to Mark, for taking the time,

for such an opening, an insightful discussion.

it's clear the people of London are at the forefront of rethinking how

we can make the most of the public land, that we have available to build

and create vibrant communities and support a more sustainable future for London.

so I hope you've enjoyed this episode, and don't forget to follow subscribe

on your favorite platforms.

We'll be back soon with more conversations

on the intersection of politics, planning and placemaking here in the capital.

And you may well see my face again here in this lovely studio, in Whitechapel.

So, until next time.

So do. Well, thank you for listening.