Tag Archives: planning

Show me the money when it comes to planning

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

The cat’s finally out of the bag when it comes to the government’s attitude to planning and how to prevent landowners and developers running amuck – they don’t care!

I’ve just pulled this from a professional planning blog entry and I think it just about sums up where localism is in planning terms – in the toilet!
‘Money valid consideration for planning permissions’
A new clause is added so that ‘local finance considerations’ become a material consideration when deciding planning applications, i.e. government grants or payment of the Community Infrastructure Levy.
This provision is to allow things like the New Homes Bonus to make grants of planning permission more likely (otherwise it would have to be ignored and thus would be useless), but may prove to be controversial (NC15).’

Given that most council leaders and chief executives come to that, don’t really care about the planning process until it goes wrong and hits the local press, I can see the planners being placed under tremendous pressure to approve everything and anything, just so long as it comes with a bag of cash attached.  what price Localism then?

An expert’s view of the wind farm issue

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

New laws could boost onshore wind farm approvals, say experts

Borrowed from http://www.planningresource.co.uk article by Susanna Gillman Monday, 09 May 2011 (hope they don’t mind!)

New planning legislation could be used to boost the approval of onshore wind farms under a recommendation from the Government’s climate change committee.

The committee has told the Government that further approvals will be required to deliver the onshore wind ambition in its renewable energy strategy.

The Government has set a target of 15 per cent of energy from renewables by 2020.

But approval rates for onshore wind projects have historically been low, with less than 50 per cent of schemes getting the go ahead and the planning period taking around two years.

In its renewable energy review, the Committee on Climate Change said even with a push for more community-led wind farm projects, there is a “significant risk that onshore wind and transmission investments will not gain local public support, given high levels of resistance from some groups”.

It concludes that achieving higher rates of approval will need central government decisions, “possibly under new planning legislation that explicitly sets this out”.

The committee, which was requested to advise on the scope to increase ambition for green energy, said renewables should make a 30-45 per cent contribution by 2030. More than 6GW could come from onshore wind through the 2020s, it suggests.

Onshore wind is also likely to be one of the cheapest low-carbon options, according to the committee. Offshore wind schemes are still expensive and should not be increased unless there is clear evidence of cost reduction, it warned.

Nuclear power is currently the most cost-effective of the low carbon technologies, and should form part of the mix assuming safety concerns can be addressed, it added.

Nick Medic, spokesman for Renewable UK, trade body for the wind and marine renewables industries, said rather than creating more legislation a better approach would be to make a case for the economic benefits of onshore wind to local communities.

A DECC spokesman said energy secretary Charles Hendry has stressed the need for greater local ownership so communities can see the benefits of wind farms as part of the future energy mix.

Wind turbines – a stick and carrot approach

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

Review highlights major role for renewables in meeting UK climate targets The Committee on Climate Change said today (9th May) in a 166 page report, that renewable energy should make a major contribution to decarbonising theUK economy over the next decades.

The executive summary, only 30 pages, has some worrying comments for those wish to resist the march of the wind turbine across the British landscape.  However, it does also suggest that those communities that do accept (suffer) them, should be able to benefit financially. 

Page 28

The planning framework for onshore wind and transmission

Planning approval rates for onshore wind projects have historically been low (e.g. less than 50%), and the period for approval long (e.g. almost two years). This reflects an implicit social preference for investment in more expensive renewable technologies, given concerns (held by some but not all people) about the visual impact of onshore wind developments.

However, further approvals will be required in order to deliver the onshore wind ambition in the Government’s Renewable Energy Strategy.

Additional approvals beyond this level offer scope for reducing the cost of meeting the 2020 renewable energy target and the cost of power sector decarbonisation through the 2020s (e.g. our analysis suggests scope to add over 6 GW of onshore wind capacity through the 2020s).

In addition, planning approval will be required for transmission investments to support increased renewable generation and sector decarbonisation. International experience suggests that approaches which achieve community buy-in to onshore wind projects through sharing financial benefits have helped support high levels of investment; it is appropriate that such approaches will be tested in theUK.

However, even with such approaches, there is a significant risk that onshore wind and transmission investments will not gain local public support, given high levels of resistance from some groups.

Achieving higher rates of approval for onshore wind projects and for required investments in the transmission network is therefore likely to require central government decisions in line with national priorities as defined by carbon budgets, possibly under new planning legislation that explicitly sets this out.

If you would like to read the whole thing for yourself, here is the link http://hmccc.s3.amazonaws.com/Renewables%20Review/Executive%20summary.pdf

Telegraph writer gets Localism Bill wrong

Posted on by • Posted in Government • Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

Saturday’s Telegraph readers of the Property section will need to take a large pinch of salt when reading an article written by the Telegraph’s supposed awarding writer, Ian Cowie.

Mr Cowie suggests that last week’s Budget is on the whole beneficial to home owners.  This may well be true, but what isn’t true ,is what he has to say about the new powers the Localism Bill will give to those home owners.

He claims that, ‘……..the Localism Bill should give residents greater power to decide whether or not more fields and woods are bricked over to build new housing,……’  . 

Now I’m not sure what this chap got his award for, but it wasn’t for demonstrating any expert knowledge of what the government’s ambitions are when it comes to the planning system in this country – ambitions that don’t involve preventing house building!

Ian Cowie appears to have missed the bit in the Budget about the planning system being changed to encourage economic growth.  That encouragement will take the form of, as various government minister have taken pleasure in saying over the last 12 months, simplifying the system so as to make it far easier to build things.

So, whilst localism will give local people a say on the types of development that take place in their area, it will definately not give them any powers to prevent development if it has already been included in the council’s development plan for the area.  Nor will communites be able to stop development, and this is the worrying bit, because it has yet to be defined in any useable way, if it is considered sustainable.

Don’t just take my word for it, read the Royal Town Planning Institute’s (RTPI) response to the budget.  http://www.rtpi.org.uk/item/4477/23/5/3

All of the people all of the time?

Posted on by • Posted in Government • Tagged , , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

Will it ever be possible for the planning system to please all of the people all of the time?  Of course not, change always brings resistance and when that changes involves, knocking down, build-up or increasing the presence of something, whether it be houses, people, cars or even cows, as in the case of a recent application for a super dairy near Lincoln, you will always get somebody who doesn’t like it. 

However, you would like to think that you could at least improve the system to the point where it met some of the aspirations of both the public and the profession, for better outcomes based on a more straightforward process.  Not so it would appear, if the repsonse of the RTPI to the recent Budget is anything to go by.

Budget: Britain’s planners fear a ‘tin shed’ England within 10 years

23-Mar-11

Changes to planning system announced today will have dramatic effect on character of the country

Richard Summers, President of the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI), which represents almost 23,000 of Britain’s planning professionals, has attacked proposals in the budget announced today to allow developers to bypass important planning rules. Richard Summers said:

“If sweeping changes announced to the planning system result in the default position being ‘yes’ to development then there is real danger that within a decade we will end up with an England of tin sheds, Lego land housing and US style shopping malls”.

“Where will the incentive be in the future for developers to address issues such as climate change, environmental protection, design quality and affordable housing, if they know that the government has tied the hands of local councillors who will be required to nod through most development proposals. This could mean developers building what they like, where they like, and when they like. It’s a policy that finally buries genuine localism”. (my emphasis).

Eric Pickles finally picks the right target

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

The link below is to the recent speech made by Eric Pickles to the CBI.

http://planningblog.wordpress.com/2011/03/22/pickles-woos-cbi

I’m actually thankful for small mercies when reading this speech.  It’s the first time I’ve read anything where Pickles appears to blame the system he and his predecessors are responsibility for, rather than the poor bloody foot soldiers (the planners) for the problems he now perceives as the root of all our ills.

He and others might still be wrong with some of their suggested solutions (NHB, community plans, LEP, enterprise zones) , but at least he’s right about some of the causes.

Planning after Localism event

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

I attended a Westminster Briefing event in London  today, in an attempt to get a better handle on how to make the new system work at the district council level.

There was a very clear feeling amongst those attending, that the new system of neighbourhood planning, if it was to become a success, would need a significant amount of resource putting in.  There was also a feeling that the minister was being extremely optimistic in his belief that neighbourhood planning would bring about any real increase in the number of houses delivered.

Most people also questioned how the New Homes Bonus (NHB), having been created by taking money away from councils in the first place, could be seen as an incentive to councils and communities to build more houses based on increased benefits to the community, as it was likely that most councils would simply use it to plug the funding gap that was now being imposed by government – the lord giveth and the lord taketh away as they say, except in the case of NHB, it’s the other way around – the gov takes it and then gives it back, if you do their bidding!

I asked Bob Neill the minister, who spoke at today’s event, how councils would be able to identify how much extra cash they had been given in the grant settlement, to help communities produce their plans, when councils didn’t know how many communities might want to produce a plan in the first place?  I think he said they were working on it and that I should ask the question as part of the consultation currently going on!

All a bit disappointing really, as I think neighbourhood and community plans could be a very good thing for people to get involved in producing.  Not only would it give them a much greater stake in the way their local area is to be developed, it would also help to get people involved in the planning process in a much more positive and long-term way than they do currently.

Unfortunately, unless the local planning authority has the right level of expertise and resource, it is likely that they are either going to avoid encouraging communities to produce plans, or worse still, actually frustrate the ambitions of those that want to produce a plan, by offering only the very minimum of assistance.

This is a great opportunity for us to show some real leadership and encouragement to our communities, but only if we have the right level of resources to do it well.

Stupid stupid stupid

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

I like using film quotes to mimic what’s going on in real life; I just wish I could remember more of them.  However, one does keep coming back to me time and time again since the coalition government came to power and decided to mess about with the planning system – again!

The quote I’m thinking of comes from the 1997 Matt Damon and Danny Divto film called Rainman and goes some thing like, ‘you must be stupid stupid stupid’.  The whole quote is (just in case you’re interested) and read out by an insurance company executive whilst under cross examination:   “Dear Mrs. Black. On seven prior occasions this company has denied your claim in writing. We now deny it for the eighth and final time. You must be stupid stupid stupid. Sincerely, Evert Luftkin, Vice President, Claims Department.”

I could quite happily rewrite this to apply to those in government, who keep sniping and criticising the planning system and blaming all the ills of the country on it.  Don’t get me wrong, the system’s not perfect far from it and if I were somebody trying to get a planning permission and finding myself fighting an uphill battle, I might well have the same attitude – it’s all the b***dy planners fault.

However, those in government who are so critical, should actually know better, after all it they (the government of the day) and not the planners, who write the rules; the planners merely interpret and implement them via local policies.  It’s also worth remembering that those policies are approved by local politicians and not planners

So, Dear Mr Cameron, Mr Osborne, Me Cable, Mr Pickles, Mr Neill, Mr Clark and even Mr Shapps (who seems happy to use Eric Pickles as his rolling, sorry I meant roving, assassin), on at least seven prior occasions, the planners have written to you refuting your claims.  We now write to you again, for the umpteenth and final time to tell you the same thing. You must be …………..Sincerely, a profession trying to do your bidding.

So, ministers, stop whinging on about how it’s all somebody else’s fault, put your pens where your mouths are and get YOUR planning legislation changed.  Then perhaps those of us at the sharp end, who are trying make some sense of the mess you’ve made of it so far, can get on with making it work – again!

Osborne now does planning – apparently!

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

You really couldn’t make this up, without being laughed at and yet it’s really happening.  Eric Pickles has decided that councils don’t known what they’re are doing when it coming to planning and has decided that a free for all is okay, as long as ‘the community’ agrees – it’s called Localism.

Meanwhile, the Tory chief bean counter, George Osborne, has decided that Vince Cable is actually the real expert on all things planning and has decided that if all the planning rules, along with the views of communities (remember that’s called Localism), were kicked in to touch, the country would be flourishing again by a week on Thursday!

So Pickles doesn’t like the planners and wants ‘the people’ to do it all and Osborne doesn’t like the planners or ‘the people’ and wants business to be able to do what the hell it likes!  Oh and by the way, just in case you didn’t realise, Pickles, Osborne and Cable are all supposedly on the same side!  Like I said, you couldn’t make it up.

Follow the link to read the full story, on how George Osborne wants to turn every high street into the American dream – to hell with what it looks likes, as long as they are all paying taxes. http://www.cityam.com/news-and-analysis/osborne-rips-planning-rules

PPG13 amendment not all that it seems

Posted on by • Posted in Government • Tagged , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

Is there no hope for us?  Even the one man who should be above going off half cocked on all things planning – unlike certain ministers – has yet again allowed his name to be put to a piece of headline grabbing psuedo-localism.  This time in the form of another letter to all local planning authorities. 

The letter said: “…the Government is changing some of the text in Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport (PPG13) to better reflect localism. The Government’s position on parking standards is that local authorities are best placed to take account of local circumstances and are able to make the right decisions for the benefit of their communities. As such, the central requirement to express ‘maximum’ parking standards for new residential development has been deleted.”

Parking standards will still need to be set, but it will be for local authorities to determine what that standard should be.

Wrong!  As pointed out by a planning professional in a recent email, what the chief planner has said, especially the bits in bold,  are just empty words, when it comes to any form of localism on this issue, because he has ‘conveniently’ forgotten to delete another bit of PPG13 that says:

Parking

50. In developing and implementing policies on parking, local authorities should:

2.  not require developers to provide more spaces than they themselves wish, other than in exceptional circumstances………’

So, having rushed to my copy of the Local Plan and scrawled out all references to  a maximum parking standards in residential development, in order to reduce the amount of pavement parking and front gardens being lost to parking places, I find that the developer is still able, with the blessing of government, to tell me to get stuffed!  Another victory for the localism agenda.