An update from the secretary of Community Voice on Planning (CoVoP), has been received by EDA:

‘Dear All

Four things to update you on at the moment:

1. Many people have been invited to participate in a discussion forum on 1st
September as part of the
Parliamentary enquiry into the NPPF. There must be at least 50 people going
and most are members of
groups associated with CoVoP. We all have local issues to discuss but the
following list of topics from
our discussion with Greg Mulholland and his colleagues does suggest a common
thread which we could
all use.

2. As a result of our discussions with MP’s and other interested groups, we
believe that the following are
the main areas where change to the planning system would be helpful now or
early in the life of the new
government:
1. The calculation methods used for determination of housing needs are
based on long term economic
forecasts of dubious accuracy but Local Plans must be based on them; they
should be based on historic
trends and include a range of figures (minimum based on pure historic trends
and maximum based on
projected economic growth).
2. The calculation of the five-year housing land supply should be based
on the minimum figure of
housing need and should include all permissions not just those which
developers chose not to land-bank.
The five year land supply target does encourage house building but the
current calculation methodology
has the appearance of allowing inappropriate land-grabbing by developers.
The inclusion of permissions
in the calculation would ensure that sufficient land was allocated but would
then encourage building on
those sites. Allocation of land for housing is essentially a one-way
process; once included in a
development plan, there is no going back – only under-provision can be
corrected later, by making further
allocations if the projection turned out to be too low. If there was
over-provision, either because the
projection was too high, or because land came forward more quickly than
expected, no corrective action
is possible.
3. An increased emphasis to be put on affordable housing. Evidence shows that many
developers prefer to build
executive homes and that they actively attempt to reduce the number of
affordable homes included in
developments. The main need is for affordable homes for individuals and
young families and for older
people to downsize to. The policy should encourage councils to prioritise
affordable homes and
bungalows for elderly people who want to downsize but still want a garden
for themselves and their
grandchildren.
4. The role of planning inspectors should be reviewed to ensure
independence and to reduce their
quasi-judicial status.
5. The constitution of planning committees and role of LPA planning
officers should be clarified (should
be supporting the planning authority and the electorate not promoting
developers).
6. The elimination of “costs” in planning appeals – if developers chose
to field numerous barristers, they
should pay for them win or lose.
7. Prioritisation of brownfield developments over green spaces.
8. Importance of infrastructure planning and funding early in the life of
developments.
9. The need to allow time for local plans to be agreed (perhaps a
moratorium on new applications for
anything other than brownfield sites until plans are in place).

3. Please take the opportunity to look at our website and see the
advertisement on the front page from
Cheshire East (click on the title for a pdf). Also see our link to the oral
evidence session to the NPPF
Review committee on July 9th. David Gladman (planning-broker and Partner,
Gladman Developments)
was giving evidence. By his own evidence, he has interests in 200 planning
applications in 70 LPAs. He
thinks that all decisions should be taken by planning officers as planning
committees are old people who
are set in their ways and who refuse to accept his assessments of housing
needs.
His evidence has its funny side. At the start of the session, the MPs had
declared connections to local
councillors (wives, fathers, party workers, etc). Mr Gladman did not appear
to be aware that he was
attacking people they value or indeed the values of democracy. He is very
cross that Cheshire East
refused his offers to let his team of planners work on the Local Plan and
draw it up for them!
It has to be said that, judging from the reaction of the MPs to Mr G.’s
sparkling personality, he has
probably done more for our cause then anybody else who gave evidence to the
Committee. At least they
might now understand why there are at least 70 LAs where a lot of people are
not very happy with the
NPPF!

4. Finally we congratulate Mr Boles on his new appointment and welcome the
new Housing and Planning
Minister Brandon Lewis. I’m sure that you know that he was already
under-secretary of state within the
Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and held a wide range
of responsibilities
including local government, fire services, high streets, town centres,
markets, travellers and pubs. We
hope that he will take the opportunity of his new appointment to make the
changes to the planning system
outlined above.’

See also http://covop.org/