Category Archives: NPPF

We don’t need a tilt, we need an earthquake

Posted on by • Posted in Development, District council stuff, Government, local government, Local Plan, NPPF, planning, public sector, South Holland • Tagged , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

Balance of power tilts back towards councils, by Richard Garlick
14 March 2014 by Richard Garlick

20140315-011903.jpg

The planning minister struck a slightly penitent note when he was explaining his finalised planning practice guidance to the Daily Telegraph last week.

Nick Boles said that additions were being made to planning guidance in some areas where the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was “not working as it should”.

The message to the Telegraph readers was clear: we are listening to your concerns about an NPPF-enabled development free-for-all, and we are taking steps to bring it under control.

It was the latest step ministers have taken to insulate the government from such criticisms. Only a few days earlier, Boles had written to complain about an inspector who had told Reigate & Banstead Borough Council to release green belt land, saying the latter “had invited misinterpretation of government policy”.

He can fairly argue that the finalised guidance will in some ways bolster local planning authorities’ control of development. But it would be an oversimplification to suggest that ministers are reaching for the reverse gear on their planning liberalisation.

Boles can argue that the guidance will bolster local controls on development
Alongside the guidance, Boles confirmed changes that will mean that in most places planning permission is no longer needed to convert shops outside key shopping areas, or agricultural buildings with a floor space of up to 450 square metres, into homes.

These are major incursions into local democratic control of development. What’s more, the guidance itself instructs planning authorities to leave no stone unturned in the struggle to make brownfield sites viable and competitive with greenfield alternatives.

Commentators have suggested that this will force councils to accept lower design standards on brownfield sites than elsewhere, as well as relinquishing any claim to deciding the scale of developer contribution necessary to provide the infrastructure needed to support the scheme. Boles may be bolstering councils on some fronts, but he continues to undermine them on others.

That said, the finalised guidance does offer genuine reinforcement for town halls.

No longer is it the government’s position that only “in exceptional circumstances” will applications be dismissed as premature in terms of prejudicing an emerging plan. Guidance now spells out that the duty to cooperate is not a “duty to accept”, and planning authorities are not obliged to meet their neighbours’ unmet needs. Unmet housing need is unlikely to constitute the “very special circumstances” needed to justify development in the green belt, the guidance says.

Not of all these provisions are major changes to the status quo. In some cases, the finalised guidance is confirming an approach that councils have already been arguing for successfully in front of inspectors, or which the secretary of state for communities and local government has been enforcing in call-ins. But, cumulatively, these and other measures in the guidance look likely to, in some sectors at least, slightly tip the balance of power back towards local authorities.

Richard Garlick, editor, Planning richard.garlick@haymarket.com.

It’s called throwing the baby out with the bath water

Posted on by • Posted in Development, District council stuff, Environmental, Government, local government, Local Plan, NPPF, planning, public sector • Tagged , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

20140312-111956.jpg

I can’t believe that these councillors can be so naïve as to think they would gain support from the planning puppet master, Nick Boles. How can they not realise that the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) is simply doing what it is told by DCLG and it’s current incumbents, Eric Pickles and the hyperactive Nick Boles? They in turn, are of course under the thumb of George Osborne, who seems to believe that building hundreds of thousands of houses,min a short space of time, will be the saviour of the UK economy.
If you want to improve things in planning terms, don’t throw out what’s been proven to work over many years, instead, get rid of the ‘external elements’ that are undermining it.

PINS fulfils a vital role, by addressing the sometimes aberrant behaviour of some planning departments and their associated planning committees. How else would an applicant, with a perfectly reasonable planning proposal, gain redress against a council that had refused that application, despite it being in compliance with both local and national planning policies?

Until you can be sure that elected members will always behave in a totally professional and unbiased manner, when considering an application and that planning officers will get it right every time, PINS will continue to be an essential element of the planning system.

Copied from Local Government Chronicle online
Leader urges Planning Inspectorate abolition
12 March, 2014 | By Mark Smulian

A council leader has called for abolition of the Planning Inspectorate after being sent a “bitterly disappointing” letter by planning minister Nick Boles.

A delegation of North Devon DC councillors (pictured) led by local MP Sir Nick Harvey (Lib Dem) handed in a letter at 10 Downing Street and met Mr Boles to highlight problems created by government planning policy on their community.

Council leader Brian Greenslade (Lib Dem) said that while the minister had been encouraging when they met his follow-up letter was short, unhelpful and evasive.

“I think he was got at by civil servants after our meeting,” Cllr Greenslade said.

The council delegation, led by local MP Sir Nick Harvey (Lib Dem), raised concerns about the refusal of planning inspectors to count inactive sites with planning permission towards councils’ required five-year land supply for housebuilding, and inspectors’ habit of substituting their own decisions for those of councils.

North Devon also objected to proposals to deprive councils of the New Homes Bonus where planning permission is given only after an appeal to inspectors.

“We were all bitterly disappointed with the short response from the planning minister, who avoided all of our main points, despite making positive comments to our councillors at the time of the meeting,” Cllr Greenslade said.

He added: “We believe that the localism agenda and the restoration of democracy to planning will be greatly enhanced if Mr Pickles were to follow the example he set when he scrapped the Audit Commission by also scrapping the Planning Inspectorate.

“I understand this is a course of action favoured by a number of Conservative MPs.”

Affordable is clearly a dirty word when it comes to housing numbers

Posted on by • Posted in Development, District council stuff, Everyday life, Government, Local Plan, NPPF, planning, South Holland • Leave a comment

Given recent comments made by various government ministers, one could be forgiven for thinking that the housing needs this government is promoting, are not exactly in line with those of the general population and that some form of hidden agenda is in play.

The link a the bottom of this page, is to an item about yet another council falling foul of the NPPF, whilst attempting to produce a Local Plan for their area.   In particular, it details the difficulties involved in identifying the actual housing needs of an area, and the tensions that exist between the open market and the needs of those who can’t afford to buy, but are still in need of somewhere to live.  Before the introduction of the NPPF, this latter group were catered for, in part at least,  by a requirement to provide a percentage of affordable housing within all large scale housing developments.

The NPPF introduced a seemingly sensible requirement to consider the financial viability of any proposed development, when determining a planning application.  This measure being designed to reduce the numbers of stalled developments, where permission had been given, but the developer couldn’t start building because the numbers did add up financially.  However, far from being the common sense requirement we all assumed it to be, it has very quickly become a get out of gaol free card for the developers.  Many of the volume house builders sort to cash in on the past housing boom by buying land at inflated costs, spurred on by the widespread belief that the housing price bubble would never stop inflating, let alone burst.  This now misguided view, was further fuelled by the ease with which people could obtain a mortgage, even when it was obvious that they would not be able to maintain the payments if interest rates were to increase.

Despite the house price crash, David Cameron has fallen for the line fed to him by  George Osbourne and pinned virtually all of his hopes for financial recovery, on a return of a market driven boom in house building – will they never learn?  This means that any developer required to provide affordable housing is able to wriggle out of doing so, by playing the viability card, this despite a significant national decline in the provision of affordable housing as illustrated in the graph.  Affordable housingAny local authority that has the temerity to continue to insist on the provision of affordable housing, is likely to be put back in its box by Eric Pickles’s equivalent of the KGB, the Planning Inspectorate.  Graph taken from document:  https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/affordable-housing-supply-in-england-2012-to-2013

The ministerial comments referred to, hide a thinly veiled distaste for affordable housing in principle.  They also display a fundamentally flawed belief that everybody, no matter how modest their means,  should aspire to home ownership and that in doing so, they will become worthy members of society.  Is this the naive vision from the out of touch and privileged elite now entrusted to run our country?  Is it a more calculated strategy, designed to support their own financial interests and those of their associates?  Or, is it a demonstration of an ingrained distrust of anybody who doesn’t aspire to home ownership and a belief that they are somehow lesser people?

Having strangled off the financial support provided by the Homes and Communities Agency for social housing, regularly refused to relax the borrowing limits on local authorities thereby preventing them from accessing the funds required to build more council houses and now given developers carte blanche to reject the requirement to provide affordable housing, one can only assume that, once again, the market has won and it’s to hell with those who can’t make the cut.

http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2014/01/01/assessing-objective-need-after-the-west-dorset-decision-bombshell/

Letter to local newspaper – PREL, Sutton Bridge

Posted on by • Posted in Development, District council stuff, Government, NPPF, planning, South Holland • Tagged , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

Dear sir,

With regards to the PREL planning application at Sutton Bridge. This application was not for an incinerator. An incinerator has only one purpose, to burn waste material. The Sutton Bridge installation will burn wood that has not been used for any other purpose. Wood is being burnt in order to produce electricity, not to dispose of it.

At the first meeting, I did not suggest that residents should have made clear that they did not want an incinerator, so no previous crystal ball gazing was required. My comments related to objections regarding increased traffic. I suggested that if residents had concerns about the Wingland site generating more traffic, these should have been raised when the site was allocated for employment use, some 10 years ago.

Some committee members suggested that they did not understand every aspect of the background information provided. I don’t feel that this undermined their ability to determine the application. Much of this information dealt with matters that were outside of the immediate planning issues and was therefore not vital to the reaching of a sound decision.

Some parties have suggested that SHDC will gain financially from this application. The district council does not own any land, or have any other financial interest in the Wingland site.

I’m mystified by the accusation that the deferment was a ruse. A discounted electricity supply, for residents, mentioned at public meetings, was referred to in lobbying letters and emails I received. Details were not provided to the committee at the first meeting. I felt it was therefore prudent to ensure that the details of this promise were clearly understood and even more importantly, the promise delivered.

Finally, the Environment Agency will be responsible for issuing the operating licence for this wood burning power station and air quality monitoring. Anybody with concerns regarding emissions from this process, should ensure that these concerns are submitted to the EA.

Councillor Roger Gambba-Jones
Chairman, Planning Committee
South Holland District Council

Lopsided story in Telegraph regarding gipsy and traveller sites?

Posted on by • Posted in District council stuff, Government, NPPF, planning, public sector, South Holland, Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , • 1 Comment

Daily Telegraph Saturday 2nd March. Green belt at risk as gipsy camp rules are enforced.

If this story is a distortion, is the Telegraph becoming a broadsheet tabloid rag?

Local Government Minister Brandon Lewis said:

“This story is completely false. This Government has increased planning protection for the Green Belt and open countryside through National planning guidance and given greater weight to the protection of local amenities and the local environment.

We’ve also increased councils’ powers to tackle unauthorised sites and provided additional funding to councils to provide new authorised pitches which have community support.”

As always, only time will tell, but by then of course, it will be too late.

Do as I say, not as I do for Eric Pickles

Posted on by • Posted in Development, Government, Local Plan, NPPF, planning • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment

On the same day that David Cameron, once again, announces moves to speed up the planning system, because it is allegedly the cause of the UK’s lack of growth, Eric Pickles puts his not inconsiderable foot in it, with the following decision.

Controversial plans for an waste-to-energy plant in the constituency of Conservative Party co-chairman Grant Shapps have been put on hold for an extended period while communities secretary Eric Pickles decides whether to call them in.

I wonder what sort of timescale Dave has given his mate Eric for sorting this out? End of the week should do, given the need for growth don’t you think?