Tag Archives: NPPF

Minimum room size standards – if you can afford it.

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

This extract from the DCLG press release, really gives me the willies, as my old dad used to say. I don’t have a problem with making sure homes work for older people – as I will be one, sooner than I wish to admit – and disabled people, so they should be. What I don’t like and what makes me both suspicious and, as usual, extremely cynical, is the bit in bold. How can one local authority have different room size needs, compared to another? Are there any secret pockets of pygmies or giants DCLG know about and we don’t?

Or is this DCLG speaking out of both sides of their collective mouths? They give you an opportunity to make an improvement in your policies, but only if you are willing to invest in proving that it is justified for your particular area? This is of course standard practice in Local Plan preparation. Producing the evidence required to justify NOT providing enough housing land, being the most obvious one. Gypsy and Traveller sites, leisure, public open space requirements and road infrastructure, are all evidence based requirements that are totally appropriate, as somebody has to pay for them and they should not be required just for the sake of it – but room sizes, really?

This statement is clearly designed to con people into thinking that DCLG are, to quote Eric Pickles, “on the side of hard working taxpayers”, whilst at the same time discouraging cash strapped councils from actually doing the evidence gathering required. If DCLG were genuine in their wish to see our rabbits hutch homes consigned to history, they would simple produce a national standard to be applied in the same as the building regulations are. Score another one for the vested interests of the planning industry me thinks.

The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) said the administration was inviting views on “minimum space and access standards that would allow councils to seek bigger homes to meet local needs, including those of older and disabled people”.

Nick Boles is from Venus, everybody else is from Mars

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

Below is a perfect example of how those in charge of our planning system, are speaking a totally different language from those raising major concerns about the impact recent changes to the system are having.

It’s not even a case of one speaking English and the other French, at least there’s half a chance of getting some understanding when you’re both from the same planet. Unfortunately, when it comes to the planning system, government ministers are from Mars and the objectors are from Venus. Indeed, some objectors might wish to suggest that ministers are (talking) from Uranus.

Anna Soubry, a Conservative health minister, wrote to Eric Pickles saying:

“planning inspectors are forcing local councils to accept more housing and build on Green Belt.”

“Notwithstanding the localism agenda, the National Planning Policy Framework, the abolition of the RSS [regional spatial strategies] and the repeated assurances of your good self and the Prime Minister”…………….. “local authorities like Rushcliffe and my own are unable to determine their own housing needs, set their own targets and protect their Green Belt land from development, ” she wrote to Mr Pickles.

Nick Boles, Eric Pickles junior minister for Planning replied:

Local councils are in control of their Green Belt boundaries, through local plans, which this Government put at the heart of the planning system to allow communities to deliver the right development for their local area.”

The key phrases here are “…unable to determine their own housing need…”, from Anna Soubry, compared to, “…to deliver the right development..”, from Nick Boles.

The clear lack of comprehension, let alone understanding, is that one wishes to reduce or even prevent development, whilst the other is saying, you can control where and what, but not if, or when. PINS understand this, but are currently being made the villains of the piece. All I can say is, don’t shoot the messenger.

Letter to Local Government First magazine – Localism and planning

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment
Dear sir,
 
I was both interested and concerned to see First, Issue 542, peppered with complaints regarding the relationship between the planning system and Localism, some even calling for the abolition of PINS because, apparently, they don’t get it.
 
The Localism Act has introduced much confusion for the public when it comes to influencing the planning process.  Comments made by members of the public on recent contentious planning applications in my own area, clearly indicate a belief that the Localism Act increases the public’s ability to prevent development from going ahead if enough of them shout loudly enough.
 
This mis-interpretation of the Localism Act’s intentions is, in turn, increasing pressure on councillors to be more outspoken and forceful when speaking at committee.  This pressure is increased further by the Localism Act’s guidance to councillors that advises that they can somehow express an opinion and even campaign on a planning issue, without being accused of pre-determination!  I wonder if any high powered planning barrister would be prepared to defend a decision made by a committee populated by such campaigning members?
 
Whilst I very much sympathise with the councillors who made these comments and understand their wish to represent fully their electorates’ views, I’m afraid it is they, not PINS who don’t get it.  
 
There is a clear need for the government to restate its intentions when it comes to how the Localism Act can be used to influence the planning system – through the process that makes the policy, not the one that determines individual applications. 

 

My best regards, 
 
Councillor Roger Gambba-Jones, 
Planning Committee Chairman, 
South Holland DC, Lincolnshire

Attack!…. my response

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

09 May 2013
Re- The Proposed Incinerator development at Wingland/ Sutton Bridge

NOTES:
The constant reference to this application being for an incinerator, are disingenuous and clearly designed to be inflammatory, in the hope of whipping up the maximum support for the objectors’ statements.
An incinerator is designed for one purpose and one purpose only; to burn waste. The power station to be built at Sutton Bridge, will be burning unused wood, not waste wood. It is designed to generate electricity, not to dispose of waste, as in the case of an incinerator.

Mr Gambba – Jones,

I listened to the deliberations at the meeting held 17th April with dis-belief at your dismissive attitude to the objections of the proposed development; frankly it stank of nepotism, corruption, ignorance of facts and public opinions and, it seemed to be just a money making opportunity for certain individuals, plus the promoters and SHDC. But I came away hoping that you and your committee would see sense and ultimately reject the proposal. How wrong can one be?

For dismissive, substitute focussed and endeavouring to ensure that only relevant material planning considerations are discussed and used to determine the application, by the planning committee.
All the planning related facts were made available to committee members in the officer’s report. All other related documents, used by the officers to arrive at the recommendation, were available for committee members to read if they had any concerns regarding the information provided to them in the report.
Nepotism is about giving favourable treatment to a family member. I’m not aware of committee members with family connections to this development, as this would have been declared at the start of the meeting and the member would of left the chamber.
Corruption – any proof of that sir? Likewise, money making for individuals and SHDC?

As Chairman of SHDC’s planning committee, you are ultimately responsible for results and repercussions of the decisions of your committee, but it appears that you are being guided and/or manipulated by certain people and the promoters of the project, all of whom appear to have personal gain as their objective.

As chairman of the committee, my role is to keep good order, avoid time wasting through discussion of irrelevant matters and to ensure, as best I can, that the decision reached by the committee is sound and defendable should it go to appeal.
The committee is most certainly guided and in some respects manipulated, by the policies and guidance handed down to us by national government, the latest of this being the NPPF. Locally, SHDC has an adopted Local Plan, that is the basis (guide) for all our planning decisions.
All commercial developments are built for profit and some form of personal gain for those investing in the development.

How you can be so mis-guided by recently re-elected councillors who have lots to say about this project, but no conviction to vote either one way or the other, but just to leave all their options open for themselves defies belief, they are hypocrites in their own right and as such should be ignored.

Recently re-elected members? All members of the planning committee receive training in order to ensure that they understand the policies that must be used when determining planning applications. As such, the experience of the committee members is not nearly as important as their understanding of our planning policies and the national guidance.

At last nights meeting you again ignored the feelings and objections of the electorate (who ultimately pay your salary) and others, of how this development would affect the wellbeing of residents of Wingland, Sutton Bridge and beyond by bulldozing this approval through, all it seems for the price of land which I am led to believe SHDC currently owns.

Unfortunately, the planning process makes no allowance for the feelings or objections of objectors, unless these clearly relate to material planning issues. Likewise, we are not allowed to take the potential devaluing of property values into consideration when determining an application.
I and others on the committee are elected members and as such, do not receive a salary. SHDC has NO financial interest in the Wingland site and does not own any of the land allocated.

The big question is; how commercially viable is this project without government subsidies? It would appear that it is not commercially viable and as such will in time become a “white elephant” all at the expense of the tax payer and to the detriment of local residents. Probably leaving an enormous bill that SHDC will have to pick up.

In planning terms, this is no question at all. It is not for SHDC, or the planning dept, to judge the viability of any development.
There is no reason why SHDC, or the taxpayers, should suffer any financial losses should this power station project fail.

Sleep well Mr Gambba-Jones in the knowledge that your actions are making some members of your electorate very ill, they live in fear of health issues and devaluation of their properties and, that because of your decision making, you are probably at this time one of the most mistrusted and disliked people in South Lincolnshire. It is probably best that you resign your position.

It’s most unfortunate that residents if are making themselves ill worrying about issues that currently have no evidence to back them up. As stated previously, property values cannot be taken in to account when determining a planning application. I have no intention of considering my position. I am but one member of the committee. Just because I happen to be the chairman, doesn’t mean that I have any greater power, or influence, than any other member of the committee when it comes to the vote.

I don’t expect a reply because if I were you, I would not know where to begin!

As you will see from the above responses,I have no problem with knowing where to begin.

Jim Stalley – resident Sutton Bridge

Planning minister dipping his fingers in to the infrastructure pot

Posted on by • Posted in Development, District council stuff, Government, planning, public sector • Tagged , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

<em>Yet another short-term, short-sighted proposal from the Minster of Planning Chaos. This government has a lamentable track record of top slicing local government funding – robbing Peter to pay Paul. They now appear to have turned their sights on to privately sourced funds, as a way of bribing communities in to accepting development.

Developers only have so much funding to put into such pots. Taking 25% of any CIL that might be in place, simply means that the funds that should be accumulated to the benefit of the community as a whole will, under these proposals, be partly dispersed amongst pockets of the community, potentially to the long term detriment of all.

New plans to encourage communities to build more homes will be unveiled today by planning minister Nick Boles.
Mr Boles is expected to announce a community infrastructure levy, which will replace Section 106 agreements and raise around £1bn a year from property developers.
Communities that draw up neighbourhood developments and secure the consent of people through a referendum will get up to 25% of the money raised through the levy. The money will be paid directly to town or parish councils.
Neighbourhoods with no development plan will still receive 15% of the levy from developments in their area.
‘The Government is determined to persuade communities to accept more house building by giving them a tangible share of the benefits it brings,’ said Mr Boles.
‘By undertaking a neighbourhood plan that makes space for new development, communities can secure revenues to make the community more attractive for everyone.’
The National Housing Federation’s head of homes and land, Rachel Fisher, said: ‘New developments should take into account the needs of local people, so we welcome the commitment to giving 25% of community infrastructure levy (CIL) money to neighbourhood groups. But it’s crucial that this does not come at the cost of delivering affordable homes.’

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?

Chief Planner could be Chief Politician

Posted on by • Posted in District council stuff, Everyday life, Government • Tagged , , , , , , • Leave a comment

I went to East Lindsey District Council near Louth last Friday, to hear Steve Quartermain, the chief planner at DCLG, field questions from elected members about the revised planning system.

As an aside, having spent 38 years in the RAF it still feels wrong to be able to drive on to an RAF station, even a disused one, without being challenged. For those who don’t know, ELDC is based on the old RAF base at Manby and it was easy to spot the guardroom, SHQ, station workshops, the barrack blocks and of course, the sacred parade square, now desecrated with parked cars. I’m pretty sure the vinyl on the floor of the bogs (toilets to you civvies) was the original stuff from RAF days!

Steve Quartermain was on very good form as always and was able to deflect, defend, duck and generally avoid any criticism of his masters in Whitehall. As an example, given David Cameron’s recent conference criticism of the planning system (again), I asked Steve if the government actually accepted that there are over 400,000 unimplemented planning permissions across England and that if they did accept this figure, then why did his political masters keep blaming the planning system for the lack of growth?

His answer was clearly well practiced and before 2007 it would have actually been an accurate one. According to Steve, 400,000 dwellings is what is needed to satisfy about two years of new housing delivery, so councils need to continue to replenish the stock of planning permissions to meet this need year on year. That would be a good answer if we weren’t recession and if our house building industry wasn’t only managing to build just over 100,000 houses a year.

On this current performance, the house building industry is likely to take at least 3, or even 4 years, to use the 400,000+ outstanding planning permissions. Steve Quartermain of course knows this better than anybody. However, being the politically astute planning professional that he is, he threw back the historical building rate figures from when times were good, bolstered by the long term deficit figure of 3 million houses, that no government has ever managed to put a dent in and swiftly moved on to the next question.

I will however give the Chief Planner his due for being consistent on one message to the assembled members – get on with producing your Local Plan. Many of those at the meeting still didn’t seem to get the other message Steve has been giving out since the coalition government rewrote the planning rules. It’s your plan, if you don’t want something to happen, get the evidence and use that to produce your LOCAL planning policies. Conversely, if you do want something to happen, do the same thing for that goal. Too many of the members at the meeting kept basing their questions on wanting the government to produce national policies that either allowed, or prevented something. One even asked about guidance on materials to be used!

These members still don’t seem to understand that this isn’t the way it works anymore and that, apart from where the central government still wishes to impose its wishes on the nation as a whole, the rest of it is up to them.

More changes to the planning system

Posted on by • Posted in District council stuff, Government, public sector • Tagged , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

Released under the relatively innocuous title, ‘Next steps to improve the planning system and support sustainable development’, there are some potential time bombs for those of us in rural areas. Reuse of agricultural buildings, “without the need for planning permission”. I wonder what horror stories that will produce for us to end up enforcing against?

The measures include:

Making it easier to re-use existing agricultural, retail and commercial buildings, such as offices and warehouses, without the need to submit a planning application, supporting small business growth.

A consultation is being published on changes to the Use Classes Order, which determines the flexibility with which such buildings can be re-used.

The consultation also proposes allowing so called ‘meanwhile’ or temporary uses of certain buildings to open up premises to new businesses and to bring redundant buildings back into use, in line with recommendations in the Portas Review.

An increase in the planning fees is welcome, as the service has always been subsidised by the general,fund i.e. all of the district’s taxpayers. However, will any of the increase in fees actually reach the service itself, or will it all end up in the corporate coffers?

Bristol, we have a problem!

Posted on by • Posted in District council stuff, Government • Tagged , , , , • 2 Comments

I attended a planning workshop in Melton Mowbray yesterday. It was wrongly named, because there was no work done by those attending, just a lot of listening, with a smattering of heckling. The purpose of this ‘workshop’ was to give elected members, from East Midlands councils, some insight into the planning reforms introduced by the National Planning Policy Framework, or NPPF for short.

Although I already knew that this has always been an issue, I was nevertheless disappointed to hear members confirm their lack of understanding when it comes to the origins of the planning policies used to determine planning applications. Two members, in particular, displayed a lack of understanding about the status of the document we are all being encouraged to work our socks off to produce by April 2013 – the Local Plan.

The first councillor, who admitted she was a new councillor and therefore the planning system, made what I considered an extraordinary and rather damning statement in respect of member training at her council, it went something like this. ‘I don’t think members actually make any decisions when it comes to planning applications, they just ratify what the officers have recommended in the report’. One of the speakers did his best to put her right, but unfortunately was prevented from saying what I was thinking, ‘Madame you are clueless and worse still, clearly incompetent when it comes to serving on a planning committee’.

A second member raised his hand to speak and despite this being a Q&A session, uttered the words that always make my heart sink – ‘It’s just a comment really’. Such opening lines are then normally followed by an irrelevant anecdote, or a claim that his or her council is doing what has said is good good practice, but with bells on. This particular gentleman, didn’t offer either of these, just a criticism that demonstrated his complete lack of ownership, when it comes to the policies being used to determine planning applications in his council. His complaint, was that officers were able to make planning decisions using delegated authority, rather than applications going to committee. He then went on to criticise the lack of any reference to the democratic process in the presentations and that state that councillors are there to represent the people. He clearly felt that having to approve a planning application, when local people had objected, just wasn’t right! The existence of a Local Plan, that made the application acceptable, didn’t seem to matter.

Finally, a very interesting comment came from a speaker who was an elected member from Birmingham. He was lamenting his colleagues practice of making site visits, often to stare at some innocuous residential extension, that was perfectly acceptable and completely in conformity with their Local Plan. Even though he said he enjoyed planning, he doesn’t do it at his council anymore!

These comments, along with several other, ‘Its just a comment really’ contributions, combined with the general tenor of members questions and heckles, confirmed my worst fears. These members have not made the link between the Local Plan they and their fellow councillors have created, the planning decisions made by their officers using delegated authority and the decisions made by members at their planning committee. Put another way, the Local Plan doesn’t belong to them.

Why Bristol? Well that’s where our beloved Planning Inspectorate is based. It is from here that, the DCLG Minister, ‘General’ Eric Pickles, coordinates his army of planning inspectors, charged with confronting the hordes of elected members rejecting planning applications with gay abandon and all under the banner of local democracy and dare I suggest, Localism.

More ill-informed comments on planning from ministers

Posted on by • Posted in District council stuff, Government • Tagged , , , • Leave a comment

Daily Telegraph

The Prime Minister exhorted the Cabinet to step up efforts to increase house-building, speed up major infrastructure projects, and cut red tape for businesses…during a Cabinet meeting.

He set out areas of particular concern, including regulations for business, problems with the planning system, the tendency for EU directives to be “gold plated” when they are implemented in this country.

“It is difficult to get big infrastructure projects off the ground, whether in the public or the private sector. That is very difficult to make happen,” he said.

Mr Osborne, Oliver Letwin, the Cabinet office minister and Mr Cameron’s policy adviser, and Nick Clegg all spoke at length during the discussion.

The spokesman also confirmed that details of the government’s planning law reforms would be published “soon”.

“Reform of the planning system is a key part of what we are doing to boost growth,” he said. “We set out the principle of a presumption in favour of sustainable development. I think we will be setting out our plans on that quite soon.”

Why is it that ministers and in particular David Cameron, insist on continuing to make such I’ll-informed comments about the planning system, despite their own experience of it as MPs? Do they really believe that their constant repetition of, ‘growth at any cost, development will be our saviour, trust us we’re MPs’, will placate those who will soon be suffering from the rampant development they are promoting?