Tear up all planning policies, then blame councils for the lack!

The government are looking at how to introduce a transition period to give councils time to produce a local plan, but they are resisting any attempt to introduce a reasonable time period for doing so. One excuse given by one of their tame peers, is that councils have had 8 years to produce plans, but the majority still haven’t, so why give them any more time now?

This reasoning, which is actually no reasoning at all, but simply a smoke-screen for wanting to get their own way as soon as possible, ignores the fact that the whole process of plan making is extremely complicated and highly expensive. It also ignores the fact that, until recently, councils could use the default position of using the national policies detailed in planning policy guidance and statements. Unless there was pressing need, such as special local circumstances, why would a council spend large amounts of their taxpayers money producing a local plan?

Successive governments have lulled councils in to what now appears to be a false sense of security, by burying them under multiple layers of planning policy and guidance, for the last 60+ years. Now the current government is throwing all that policy in the bin and then blaming councils for not having any of their own policies. Just to add insult to injury, the government has now produced the sloppily worded NPPF, as a replacement for all that planning policy, with a statement in it designed to ‘punish’ councils that don’t have their own policies; where a plan is silent, indeterminate or out of date, planning permission should be given without delay.

The double whammy of no plan and no time to produce one, is potentially as damaging as the presumption in favour statement that we are all getting so hot and bothered about. I hope as much effort is put into getting a sensible timescale put in place, as has been expended to date, in exposing the NPPF as a flawed document.

Government Tries to Speed up Local Plan Examination to smooth #NPPF Transition

Local involvement in the NPPF

This afternoons #NPPF DCLG Select Committee – Practitioner agrees to need for transition
by andrew lainton October 17, 2011

In the second session Cllr Gary Porter – one of the practitioners group 4 – was entertaining. Not the sort of cllr you would want to cross at 11.00pm at the end of an exhausting meeting. He sees everything in very black and white terms and gets angry at other views.

He conceded the need for a transition – not just for putting plans in place but for updating plans to include things like parking standards. He also criticised the 20% rule saying the figure should be set locally.

The committee was rather slack jawed at his bizarre suggestion that local authorities should be able to choose from several competing sets of guidance on matters such as how to set housing targets – how could any plan be found sound by an inspector – or not have the decision challenged in the courts – in that set up.

Blog at WordPress.com. Theme by Onswipe.

A timely warning to all of us

Here’s an interesting piece (for those of us interested in planning issues that is) from a planning website where local government planners pose questions to colleagues. It should serve as a timely warning to any council concerned about how to deal with neighbourhood plans. For those who don’t wish to read the whole thing, it’s all about neighbourhood plans being used by some parties as a way of promoting their own vested interests.

Having found no interest in these at all, suddenly here in (location deleted for obvious reasons) we’ve got 3 suggestions coming forward and need to act fast if we are to bid for CLG grant – assuming they could be runners.
What worries us is that they all propose housing developments that run counter to our recently adopted LDF (Core Strategy, Development Policies and Allocations DPDs) and therefore could fail at the first hurdle of not being in general conformity with the strategic policies of the local plan.
Being a large rural area we have a sustainable settlement hierarchy in our core strategy to promote development in the towns and larger villages with a good range of services, etc and we severely restrict new housing development elsewhere, including small villages. We now have a small village of 20 houses with a supportive parish council (covering a wider area) wanting to promote 2 dwellings for the families of well respected local business people, whose planning applications have previously been refused.
So only 2 dwellings – hardly a general conformity issue you might think? but it could be repeated and it undemines our strategy of delivering sustainable development, yet is probably in line with national policy.
What do you think? Anybody else proceeding with a neighbourhood plan for 2 dwellings? The other 2 proposed neighbourhood plans relate to secondary service villages with no housing allocations and tightly defined development limits and developers wanting to promote relatively large sites.
One sites was even rejected for allocation by the LDF Inspector last year. It’s not certain they would get 50% community support, but with a referendum not until the end of the process it’s an unknown and potentially a waste of money.
In one village several members of the parish council have direct interests in the site promoted, so presumably couldn’t vote. Is anybody else struggling over how to proceed with neighbourhood plans that don’t comply with the LDF and have PC members with vested interests?

May says we’ve changed, Maude suggests not

Theresa May is making a valiant effort to shift the public’s view of the Tory Party, by being brave enough to go on the record, saying that the Party has changed and is no longer, ‘the nasty party’.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/8801264/Not-the-nasty-party-the-Conservatives-have-changed-significantly-says-Theresa-May.html

Unfortunately, Francis Maude seems hellbent on dispelling that view by laying in to the National Trust and by inference it’s many hundreds of thousands of supporters, including many Tories no doubt.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/francis-maude-big-society-its-nothing-to-do-with-us-2364350.html

If you can’t bring yourself to read all of this pompous blurb, I’ve repeated the relevant section below.

‘………. Then, in the next breath, he is vowing to take on the unions, accusing the National Trust of peddling “bollocks” about planning reforms,……’

Time to target MPs on the NPPF

With the likes of Francis Maude thinking he can say what he likes about those have the temerity to challenge the National Planning Policy Framework CONSULTATION document, perhaps the emphasis should now shift towards individual MPs.
Members of those organisations currently being slated by various CLG ministers and others who should know better, should now start filling their MP’s postbags with letters of protest at the intemperate and now insulting language being used against those who are exercise their democratic right to comment on a government policy document that is, after all, only out for consultation.
That is of course unless the consultation exercise is actually nothing but, to quote Francis Maude, the new foul-mouthed fishwife of Westminster, ‘bollocks’.

David Cameron advises us to use local policies to fill NPPF gaps

David Cameron so obviously doesn’t understand the way the planning system works and has not read the NPPF. He appears on the Andrew Marr show this morning, trotting out the propaganda fed to him by those who have been promoting wholesale changes to the planning system.

More interestingly, he suggested that, just because something isn’t ‘specified’ at the national level, such as the control of roadside advertising hoardings, this doesn’t mean it can’t done at the local level. Taken to it’s logical conclusion, this could see the thousands of pages that will been thrown on the bonfire, by the introduction of the 50 odd pages of the NPPF at the national level, replaced by thousands of pages of planning legislation being created at the local level – some improvement to an over complex system that will be!

I hope all of those involved in the producing planning policies at the local level take note of this steer from the Prime Minister. I read this as: Where the National Planning Policy Framework is, out of date, indeterminate or silent on a subject, a local policy is to be used to fill the gap.

An American abroad

Notwithstanding his role as the president of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE), Bill Bryson speaks with great wisdom on the potential damage the NPPF could do to the English landscape.

If government ministers won’t listen to its own people – Francis Maude, a supposedly clever man at the heart of government, describing their concerns as ‘bollocks’ – perhaps they will listen to an American, who has personal knowledge of the damage done to his country through uncontrolled development.

A failed Facebook posting

Even the Policy Exchange turns on the #NPPF – Mail

Interestingly, this anti-NPPF story coincides with the release of a briefing note on the Conservative Councillors’ Association website, that is intended to give Conservative councillors ammunition to defend the NPPF.
The CCA’s attempt to defend the indefensible, is ill judged to say the least. Trotting out the same junk as the ministers who spend much time beating up local government, on a site designed to support those involved iis local government, is at best ill conceived and at worst arrogant.
Whoever decided to do this, obviously has no experience the way planning works at the grassroots level that councillors have to deal with everyday, or how much more difficult the NPPF could make the job.

Lack of truth, or just a lack of understanding?

There’s an interesting convergence emerging in the amongst all the claims and counter-claims surrounding the NPPF consultation. The coming together is in respect of the comments made by John Howell, self-confessed author of the Tories Open Source Planning document and those made by the likes of Pickles and Clark, about what the term sustainable development actually means and how it came into being.

John Howell claims that the presumption in favour term was never meant to refer to individual planning applications, but only to development plans. The problem is, the NPPF refers to plans and decision making in the same sentence over and over again, lending a lie to John Howell’s claims.

Where the convergence comes, is in the claims being made, the latest in a speech today by Eric Pickles, that the presumption in favour of development has always been in the planning regulations in some form. However, dig down and you find that the presumption that has existed in the regulations, actually referred to land that had already been zoned, or identified as suitable for development. Put another way, it is land that is allocated, as in a local plan site allocations map.

So John Howell is right in that respect, the presumption was supposed to be all about plan making, not about individual applications. The problem seems to be, that those responsible for the NPPF, the so called wide ranging expert group, appear to have bastardised the presumption term into the catchall statement that is now causing us all so much angst.

Newspapers now digging for dirt on NPPF

The link below is to a blog page referring to a Sunday Guardian story. The blog comment makes the point that, somewhat late in the day, the newspapers have realised that a major vested interest, in the form of a Taylor Wimpey director was one of the four people involved in drafting the NPPF that is now causing something of a storm in the press.

Although the story has some legs, in that asking a major developer to help draft the policies designed to control the excesses of his industry, is akin to giving a fox the keys to the hen house, I hope the focus remains on the planning issues and doesn’t deteriorate into personality based mud slinging. The flawed nature of some of the key elements of the NPPF now needs to be examined in a way that the public can understand and that enables them to make their concerns known to their MPs.

Sunday Times – ‘Wimpey Director Wrote New Planning Law’ #NPPF