Future dense

Developer Roger Zogolovitch, managing director at Lake Estates, and architect Simon Allford, partner at Allford Hall Monaghan Morris, have a particularly bold vision for change. After it took Zoglovitch three years to get consent for four apartments on a brownfield site in south London, the pair decided to come up with an alternative.

They want to abandon the concepts that dictate nearly all urban development – land use zoning, overlooking and context – as they see these and remove the need for planning consent in designated areas. It's a radical proposal, but it has been endorsed by the Royal Institute of British Architects' strategy committee and Zogolovitch met Barker on 28 October.

Currently, land use zoning stops the juxtaposition of conflicting interests – so homes aren't built next to bone-boiling factories, for example. But Zogolovitch and Allford say this restricts flexibility too much. In London, all business uses are generally included in class B1 (offices, research and development and light industrial) of the 1987 Use Classes Order. This class must be capable of being undertaken "in any residential area without detriment to the amenity of that area". But, argue Zogolovitch and Allford, if B1 uses are acceptable in a residential zone and we need more housing, why not simply switch business uses to residential ones? "What we want, surely, is an oversupply of housing, not offices," argues Zogolovitch.

The current planning regulations also include restraints that seek to preserve privacy and light and councils' urban development plans all include guidance on how to avoid overlooking. For instance, generally speaking, housing developments in London should have an 18 m gap between front elevations, which clearly limits how many homes you can get onto one site.

The argument that a building is not in context – not in keeping with the local environment – is used to oppose new developments of any kind, both in a policy context and in general comments from scheme opponents. As a result, Allford argues, our public environment is blotted with ersatz architecture that badly mimics its original surroundings.

Allford and Zogolovitch want instead to introduce "densification areas" where automatic development rights – in effect, a building licence – would be granted on payment of a fee. A densification area could be in the inner city, or an area where high-density development would not harm the surrounding environment and, more importantly, might achieve sustainable regeneration by attracting investors to the relative freedom offered. The London Docklands enterprise zone could be considered an extreme example of the idea.

A developer would still have to get planning permission for a new elevation, say, but their automatic right to redevelopment could be taken up if certain basic conditions applied (see "No consent needed", below).

The general increase in densities would give housing providers more opportunities to build, possibly in partnership with the private sector, as developers would still be required to meet affordable housing quotas.

They also believe the idea could reduce nimbyism. Zogolovitch proposes that residents could choose whether or not their neighbourhood becomes a densification area, in the knowledge that the income from building licences will be spent on improving local amenities. "If the community has a positive engagement with the idea, they will take a more positive attitude towards development," he says. Densification might be an interesting way of injecting some life back into local democracy.

Of course, many will disagree with Zogolovitch and Allford (see "What the planners think", below). But proponents of densification can take hope from the RIBA's endorsement, their meeting with Barker and the fact that housing and planning minister Keith Hill shows signs of interest. Hill, who last week proposed giving developers the option to pay a fee instead of building affordable housing, published a consultation paper in July suggesting authorities be more liberal about change of use to residential, in order to boost housing stock. Zogolovitch and Allford can only hope that Kate Barker – and her Treasury bosses – will agree.