The statement by the new Minister that the Coalition’s policies on development have brought great happiness to many people was based on two surveys: one of 3,000 people in 2010 and another of 1,000 people in 2013.
Minister … straws … clutching.
Perhaps it was a note Boles had left in his office!
Dear [Daily Telegraph] Editor,
This morning’s headline story (Minister: Nimbys have had their day – 26 July) in the Daily Telegraph beggars belief!
What on earth will it take to get the current government, and Brandon Lewis in particular, to wake up and smell the abject disbelief amongst the rural community in particular that “people now have a greater say in where housing goes”. A survey of only 3000 people in 2010 compared with a similar one of only 1000 in 2013 certainly does NOT compare with the responses registered with Community Voice on Planning (www.covop.org) and is remarkably thin evidence upon which to trumpet the progress of national government policy. If ministers quote from such a small sample it only serves to reinforce what the community has been saying for years – our ministers’ dogmatic presumptions hold sway in spite of the real world situation they are attempting to govern.
Those of us who have raised the uncontrolled inappropriate development rush issue – for in practice that is EXACTLY what it is at present, are NOT against development per se. What we are infuriated over is the repeated examples of poor strategic planning by local authorities. This is exacerbated by blatant exploitation of land-banking by developers – invariably on the easiest of development land, ie green spaces, who then make all sorts of promises of affordable home provision to gain outline planning permission only to renege subsequently by pleading non-viability once permission is gained and requisite infrastructure costs imposed; local authorities then invariably buckle under threat of legal costs of appeal and the developers get their way.
Construction of the open market houses doesn’t begin until the developer feels like it and the 5 year housing supply doesn’t get updated until they do. This leads to more applications while the going is good and infrastructure improvements to support any of this cannot be funded until the houses are built.
The community has NO say in this process yet it gives our blinkered politicians a warm and cuddly feeling that everything is going well! Oh really?
Paul S G Adams MBE
Vice-Chairman
DefeND North Devon
Brandon Lewis seems to be taking the mantle of his predecessor, Nick Boles, with ease. He says that “communities that once opposed housing developments now support them because of the Coalition’s planning reforms” according to the front page, headline in today’s Daily Telegraph. He went on to give figures from a survey which appears to show that more communities are prepared to accept more housing.
However, see here for a different take on this article from the National Trust:
… “However the comments risk causing anger in the countryside where the Coalition’s reforms have triggered a huge surge in planning applications for new house building – Many communities across the country are fighting plans for new housing estates imposed by councils that have to meet new five year housing targets under the reforms.”
http://www.nationalheadlines.co.uk/new-planning-minister-suggests-nimbys-have-had-their-day/420666/
COVOP is a national grouping of local initiatives where people are unhappy about how the National Planning Policy framework is working (or rather not working). Their latest news update is below:
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.
Commenting on the front page story in the Daily Telegraph last year, new Planning and Housing Minister Brandon Lewis, MP said:
Local Government Minister Brandon Lewis said:
“This government has increased accountability and transparency over councillors’ interests, to accompany greater power and freedoms for local councils.
“Councils should adopt a Code of Conduct that reflects the Nolan principles on conduct in public life, with councillors declaring any private interest that relate to their public duties, and councillors must take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.
“In addition, it is now a criminal offence to fail to declare or register disclosable pecuniary interests – which includes any employment or trade carried out for profit or gain. The register of councillors’ interests must be published online by the council.
“Councillors should act in an open and transparent way, to avoid conflicts of interest on issues such as planning applications or benefiting financially from the issuing of council contracts.”
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/councillors-interests-and-planning
Perhaps we should now all write to him updating him on the progress our council has made on investigating disgraced ex-Councillor Brown’s chairmanship of the EDDC Local Plan working group at the same time as chairing the group of local developers, the East Devon Business Forum. Progress:none as EDDC CEO Mark Williams has refused to allow the EDDC Task and Finish group on this subject to meet.
Developers want to build more than 300 houses on the outskirts of Honiton along the country lanes between Honiton and Gittisham. This planning application has gone like a ping-pong ball at DMC meetings.
See here for a summary of the latest omnishambles:
https://susiebond.wordpress.com/2014/07/13/decision-deferred-on-land-west-of-hayne-lane-gittisham/
So many, many questions!
Why was the warning of Councillor Claire Wright (which predicted exactly these problems in November 2013) not heeded? Surely not because she does not belong to the majority party because, of course, as we all know, planning is not a party issue:
Why was this originally recommended for approval when even the Secretary of State at the Department for Communities and Local Government has said it is so controversial it will need to go to him for determination?
Why, given that so many of our councillors have “two hats” and serve on local AONBs (and boast about it) did they not object earlier?
Why did officers not take into account the effect of this development on health service education and local infrastructure?
The Chief Executive NOW says:
“Further consideration and discussion needs to take place. As a result I would like to recommend that Members defer this application to enable this further work to be carried out. The matter to then be reported back to the committee at a future date when all of the necessary information and professional advice can be made available to Members in the officer’s report so that a fully informed decision can be made.”
so what has changed since this development was recommended for approval?
Who ARE Welbeck Strategic Land LLP – they seem to have appeared all over the country with their reductive compass and square logo, shoving in similar speculative applications just about everywhere? Why is its original planning application form so devoid of information (no information about the types of houses, parking, no waste storage or collection information, etc.? If people can put a planning application in with so little information how can a DMC make a decision about it?
Can we hope for a better replacement? PLEASE!
Nick Boles (moved)
Nick Boles has been appointed as minister of state at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Education. David Cameron said part of his brief will be equal marriage implementation.
The Strategic Housing Market Analysis can be contested. See http://saveoursidmouth.com/2014/07/15/shma-does-not-of-itself-set-the-housing-target/
Here is a summary from COVOP of the debate:
A debate on planning policy and the effects of the NPPF took place on 9th July 2014 in Westminster Hall.
The debate was chaired by Clive Betts ( L. Sheffield SE) and was answered by Planning Minister Nick Boles (C. Grantham). The following MPs took part:
Steven Baker (C. Wycombe), Guy Opperman (C. Hexham), Caroline Nokes (C.Romsey) Bob Russell (LD Colchester), Damien Hinds (C. East Hampshire)
Julian Sturdy (C. York Outer), Neil Carmichael (C. Stroud), Mark Menzies (C.Fylde), Andrew Bingham (C. High Peak), Laurence Robertson (C. Tewkesbury), Martin Horwood (LD Cheltenham), Anne-Marie Morris (C. Newton Abbot), Chris White (C. Warwick and Leamington Spa), Rebecca Harris (C. Castle Point), Andrew Turner (C. Isle of Wight), Jason McCartney (C. Colne Valley), Nick Herbert (C. Arundel & South Downs), William McCrea (DUP Antrim) and Roberta Blackman-Woods (L. Durham).
Although MP after MP presented a case for some reform of the current system and made it clear that they and their constituents felt that the NPPF was not working properly or as intended by the Localism Act, the Minister made it clear that he was not prepared to amend or reduce the power of the Inspectorate or the Developer Lobby. Those MPs who spoke, principally but not wholly from rural districts, made it clear that the effects in their constituencies were often perverse.
Mrs Blackman-Woods summarised the comments very fairly. Mr Boles believes that matters will be worse under a Labour Government and feels that he is representing all those people who aspire to live in a district but don’t do so. He intends to vote Conservative at the next election!
The debate makes interesting reading and many of the complaints made by this assortment of MPs, who are to be congratulated for the persistence with which they are attacking this issue, will be familiar to our members. Those of us whose members didn’t participate might wish to ask why?
For the full debate, see:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm140709/halltext/140709h0001.htm
Asks one commentator.
Well, there are several reasons and maybe you can think of others.
One is that our Local Plan relies on current data to set its targets. EDDC constantly tells us we need more houses. This data says that almost every part of East Devon may be losing population. The numbers dropping in each area is not explained by them moving to other parts of the district – so where are they going and why?
Another is that if it reflects people unwilling to join the electoral roll – what is the reason? Those who do not vote, when encouraged to do so often seem to vote for minority parties, si it might mean results are skewed towards the majority party if they are not encouraged to register. In a district where majority could be decided by a handful of votes this becomes important.
Finally, these could be people attempting to avoid council tax or second home owners – we need to be able to trace such people both for income and statistical purposes.
A 6% drop in one year is a big drop – it needs explanation. Maybe there is a simple one – either way we need to know.
Hear, hear!
And, as mentioned before, how convenient that the developer-free-for-all will almost certainly continue right up to the local elections in May 2015.
Sir Andrew Motion points out the irreparable damage resulting from the current National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), in an article published today: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/26/fields-england-postwar-countryside-englishness
Just in case you haven’t seen it, officers and councillors here is the latest government paper on how to calculate 5 year land supply. We wouldn’t want to get it wrong again would we?
http://www.parliament.uk/Templates/BriefingPapers/Pages/BPPdfDownload.aspx?bp-id=sn03741
The national group to which EDA belongs (Community Voice on Planning, CoVoP) , has sent this report:
Dear All
We had a CoVoP committee meeting on Sunday and seem to have a lot going on nationally at the moment. We’re sure that you know about much of it but just in case you don’t:
Community and Local Government Inquiry into the operation of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
The committee has received over 200 written submissions (many from our affiliates and their members) which are available on their website – see links on our page in the “News” section http://covop.org/inquiry/ . They are now starting to take oral evidence and the first session was Monday 9 June – you can find a recording via our page on the enquiry. We are in contact with them to see if we can provide oral evidence on behalf of community groups in a future session.
Greg Mulholland’s Bill for amendment of the NPPF
This private members bill has lapsed due to the shortage of parliamentary time but Greg is currently organising a roundtable for groups who share such a vision for the future of our planning system. The aim of the roundtable event is to make clear to both the current and next government the planning issues they must tackle. We will be attending the event.
All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Greenbelt
This group was set up last year by Chris Skidmore and was due to publish a report in spring of this year – as spring is now officially over we are trying to find out exactly what this group is doing and how we can influence their activities.
All political parties are now in election fever
With the elections now less than a year away, all parties are now focusing on how to win the next election. We are strictly non-party-political but feel that all of the major parties can be tarred with the same brush. They are not listening to the views on the voters when they are told that the planning system is not working – localism doesn’t exist and developers are running riot all over the country. With the current status of the planning laws, developers can obtain planning permission to build almost anywhere and then have the possibility of land banking while they obtain additional permissions. More houses will be built in the countryside and small towns and not where the real need is which is in the large employment centres. This will increase carbon emissions as more people have to travel longer to work. The NPPF talks about well-being, environment, infrastructure and sustainability, which are all good things. However, in reality the only thing being considered is whether the LPA have a five year supply, or not.
We need your help:
Tell us what the 3 KEY ISSUES are in your area and let’s try to get the common issues promoted more widely.
Tell all planning protest groups that you know about us and ask them to affiliate to us – it doesn’t cost them anything and it will strengthen our hand when we are talking to MP’s and Ministers.
During the questioning at the oral evidence session in Parliament on Monday, two comments were made by members of the committee which we think were incorrect. If anybody has any evidence to the contrary, please would they send it in so that we can write to the committee to refute the statements.
Simon Danczuk MP stated that Local Planning Authorities had had ten years to formulate their Local Plans. We are aware that there are some areas of the country where there has been local government re-organisation and this has interfered with the plan preparation. Has anybody any information on this?
Mark Pawsey MP stated that there had not been any instances of the greenbelt being developed or being lost because of the Local Plan.
In both these instances, the people being questioned were not able to give instances. As one person stated, he was not aware of any instances. That does not mean that they don’t exist. Please can anybody put forward any evidence for either of these circumstances?
Thanks for reading.
Julie
Admin at CoVoP
Community Voice on Planning
A National Alliance to provide communities with an effective voice on planning.
http://www.covop.org
See extraordinary comments by Cllr Diviani and close colleagues, in today’s report at http://www.viewfrompublishing.co.uk/news_view/32635/12/1/sidmouth-cranbrook-has-much-to-learn-from
This, and EDDC Cabinet’s ‘ Vision for Cranbrook’ , raises many questions. Some prime examples are given on the Vision for Sidmouth website today, in the following blogpost: http://futuresforumvgs.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/last-weeks-district-council-cabinet.html
“Affordable housing”? In your dreams!
as evidenced here:
http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/Housing-demanded/story-21210221-detail/story.html
Er, couldn’t he just use the law. Why offer carrots when what may be needed is big stick?
Developer: should I build on a brownfield site and sell my houses for £250,000 each and take 3 months per home to sell them or should I build on greenfield or AONB and sell them for £500,000 each and sell them immediately?
If the “incentive ” is less than £250,000 per house in those circumstances, why bother?
Anyone else get tired of reading puff jobs on supermarkets, fast food restaurants, etc saying “100 new jobs created” or “20 jobs” … when it turns out most of these jobs are either zero hours contracts or for 3 hours or 10 hours? Three or four of these “jobs” don’t even make one job. Maybe five or six or more are equal to one full-time post.
Then you go into said supermarket and see lines of self-serve tills or you see queues going outside the fast food shop due to “staff shortages” where the staff never seem to materialise.
Perhaps these companies should have to say how many FULL-TIME equivalent staff they are promising and should then be monitored by Trading Standards!
But seriously, the constant boasting and the house-building that is meant to go with these so-called jobs is seriously skewed as the low hours workers can never aspire to owning them but the big businesses just continue to be economical with the truth.
East Devon Watch 