Recent debate in Westminster Hall on town centres and supermarkets differing views of a constituency MP and the Planning Minister:

John Pugh Lib Dem Southport (where Sainsbury’s wants to build an out of town supermarket by demolishing one of their Homebase stores but is refusing to consider an in-town site formerly occupied by a Morrisons store):

… When applying for … permission, supermarkets go armed with persuasive, expert consultants, planners and researchers and can offer a view of the whole retail environment that the council hearing the application cannot really judge for itself, because planning departments are, by and large, severely under resourced. The lack of resources is due to local authority cuts, but planning departments have never been particularly well resourced and are often short of independent data, which costs money. They are also unable to face up to the costs of refusal, leading to an expensive appeal process. Planning departments across the land are hurrying to get housing figures in place, but they are not doing much work, number-crunching or thinking about the retail environments that they often strive to protect.

… Ultimately, planning departments are also vulnerable to what I was going to call “bribery”, although I do not want to use that word because individual bribery is not involved. However, a supermarket wanting to get its way, whatever the effect on the town centre, will normally present its case by suggesting that, due to some attractive agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, something that the council wants, such as a traffic development, can be delivered as part and parcel of a new development. On one side is the threat of an expensive appeal and on the other is the bribe that granting permission may lead to some benefit that the council may not be able to accommodate through its own resources. That is generally what the monitoring of such developments shows..

… The onus is on local town planners and councils to have a positive view of where their town is going, which aligns with what is commercially viable. … To some extent, the problem for councils at the moment is that they are concerned—and the Minister is pleased about this—about finding forward-looking plans apropos housing, but are sometimes leaving retail and the commercial community to sort themselves out. They will not do so to everybody’s satisfaction.

Response by Nick Boles, Planning Minister

… I am firmly of the view that supermarkets have been a powerful force for social and economic good in this country for the past 50 years. I am firmly of the view that people on modest incomes around the country, in his constituency of Southport and in mine of Grantham and Stamford, have the opportunity to buy a range of quality food and other items that were unaffordable or unavailable to all but the very rich when I was growing up, and probably when my hon. Friend was growing up.

Full debate here:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm140624/halltext/140624h0002.htm#14062434000002

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jun/26/tesco-hoarding-land-that-could-build-15000-homes-supermarket

Many will recall rhe furore when the National Planning Policy Framework was initially drawn up by a group of builders and developers, the majority of them 3 out of 4) large donors to the Tory Party. Now the Institute for Government has issued a report on the background to this project, and what a sleazy business it apoears to uncover.

Here are a few snippets from their report:

… But there is increasing interest in different approaches to policy making from both ministers and from the leadership of the Civil Service. The Civil Service Reform Plan published in mid-June states that “open policy making will become the default. Whitehall does not have a monopoly on policy-making expertise. We will establish a clear model of open policy making…” …

… DCLG had been planning before the election how to address the manifesto commitment to produce a new planning framework. They had set up a programme board, and had produced a 500-page draft before the election. …

In parallel to establishing the practitioners’ advisory group, but without mentioning it, Greg Clark announced the review of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) on 20 December 2010. He asked for views and set a deadline for the end of February:

The group was only acknowledged in March 2011. Its ad hoc establishment meant it could not be given official status. However people in the know in Whitehall and beyond were aware that there was an exercise in train which added to the awkwardness. The lack of official status meant that DCLG emphasised to external bodies that the department was drafting the new NPPF.

They were not given a formal terms of reference by the minister – indeed they were asked to produce their own.

PAG members told us that the process was much more time-consuming than they expected. None of them were paid for their work, so there was a clear bias in favour of those for whom this could be part of their day job.

One outsider told us that he was unclear whether the PAG thought their remit was simply to précis existing guidance or to make new policy. And indeed there seemed to be continuing confusion over whether the NPPF was simply a restatement of existing guidance in more usable form or a real change in policy. The PAG themselves report heated debates over:

 the presumption in favour of sustainable development

 issues such as flood protection – a big issue in Gary Porter’s home county of Lincolnshire,

but where the environmental view held sway

 the viability of building

 whether there should be local or national standards for sustainability

And there is MUCH more …

To read the full report – on which we will report further:

Click to access opening_up%20policy%20making_final.pdf

…

The selection of the four (on the NPPF Panel) was very ad hoc. The participants appeared to be very surprised to be asked and did not really understand the reasons for their selection. They were each invited for a chat about planning with Greg Clark at which they were invited to take part. There was no hint of using Nolan processes for public appointments and no formal announcement of the establishment of the PAG. The Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) pointed out that the informality and secrecy of the process meant that none of the normal sounding-out of interested parties happened.

Click to access opening_up%20policy%20making_final.pdf