Category Archives: NPPF

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

7 Jul 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Carter family, Clinton Devon Estates, Coastal erosion, Developers/ Development, EDDC, NPPF, South West Coast Path

Comments

2 Comments

A poignant planning application on the 75th anniversary of D-Day (and enthusiastically supported by Clinton Devon Estates)

Brandy Head is a promontory about 1½ miles SSE of Otterton.

In 1940 the RAF opened a gunnery research range here for ground attack fighters. An observation post was built on Brandy Head with blast walls at the rear and a viewing balcony looking seaward. Targets were floated offshore and aircraft such as Typhoons, Hurricanes and Spitfires from 10 Group RAF would fly from Exeter to test turret mounted guns, wing-mounted cannons and later rockets by flying over the observation post to attack the targets anchored at sea.

The utilitarian observation post still stands as a shell, having lost its roof, alongside the Coastal Path only yards from the cliff edge. It is often used by walkers as a place for a coffee break.

The new tenant farmer at Stantyways Farm has recently submitted a planning application 19/0883 to convert the observation post to holiday accommodation.

This raises an interesting debate: is this an example of imaginative re-purposing of a derelict land mark which will ensure its future; should the observation post be left alone to stand as a simple epitaph; or is it the start of a new camping site to rival Ladram Bay and Devon Cliffs on either side?

Owl has noted this passage from the Design and Access Statement supporting the application:

“Clinton Devon Estates have offered Mr and Mrs Walker their support and have stated:

“Clinton Devon Estates recently let Stantyway Farm to Mr and Mrs Walker, we are encouraged by their plans to farm organically and sustainably. Their tender included a wish to convert the lookout into visitor accommodation to make the most of the South West Coast path tourism and we support this diversification and use of the redundant building.

It is essential that the eco-sustainability side is expressed and access is by foot.”

Owl personally just wouldn’t perch overnight that close to the cliff edge!

Perhaps it also needs Listed Building or Heritage Building status?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

25 Jun 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Environment (local), Fracking, NPPF

“Government axes ‘pro-fracking’ paragraph from NPPF following court defeat”

“The government has removed a paragraph from the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) intended to support the extraction of “unconventional hydrocarbons” following a High Court ruling earlier this year which found that a public consultation on the policy was flawed.

Paragraph 209 (a) of the NPPF had stressed the benefits of onshore oil and gas development, including “unconventional hydrocarbons”.

It stated that such developments benefit the security of national energy supplies and support the transition to a low-carbon economy. It went on to give a commitment that policies will be put in place to facilitate on-shore exploration and extraction of hydrocarbons, including fracking for shale gas.

The paragraph was added to the NPPF as part of revisions to the document published last year.

But in March, environmental campaign group Talk Fracking successfully challenged the new paragraph at the High Court.

Judge Mr Justice Dove ruled that the public consultation on the new policy was unfair and unlawful and the government had failed to take into account up-to-date scientific evidence on the climate change impacts of such development.

He ruled that the secretary of state “did not consciously consider the fruits of the consultation exercise in circumstances where he had no interest in examining observations or evidence pertaining to the merits of the policy”.

“This had the effect of excluding from the material presented to the minister any detail of the observations or evidence which bore upon the merits of the policy,” he added.

Yesterday, the housing ministry announced that it had removed the paragraph from the NPPF.

This followed a written ministerial statement in May which stressed that, despite paragraph 209 (a) being removed, the remainder of the NPPF policies “and, in particular, Chapter 17 on ‘Facilitating the Sustainable Use of Minerals’ remain unchanged and extant”.

“For the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework, hydrocarbon development (including unconventional oil and gas) are considered to be a mineral resource,” it added.

In addition, the statement added that the written ministerial statements of 16 September 2015 on ‘Shale Gas and Oil Policy’ and 17 May 2018 on ‘Planning and Energy Policy’ “also remain unchanged and extant”.

It added: “The written ministerial statements sit alongside the National Planning Policy Framework.

“Planning Practice Guidance is also unaffected by the ruling. This suite of policies and guidance remain material considerations in plan making and decision taking for hydrocarbon development and they should be afforded appropriate weighting as determined by the decision maker.”

Government axes ‘pro-fracking’ paragraph from NPPF following court defeat

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

8 Feb 2019

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Austerity cuts, Developers/ Development, Housing (local), Inequality, Infrastructure, Local Plan, NPPF

“Government housing delivery plan ‘flawed’ “

Well, cover me in tar and call me the M5! Owl has been saying this for YEARS. The only question that needs to be asked is: Is this deliberate or unintentional? Either way, it’s a damning indictment of its mendacity and incestuous relationship with developers or a damning indictment of its totally inept ability to govern. Or, of course (and more likely) BOTH!

“The government’s housing planning system is unable to demonstrate it is meeting housing demand effectively, public spending watchdog the National Audit Office (NAO) has said.
The government wants 300,000 new homes a year from the mid-2020s onwards.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has a standard method, developed in 2017, for local authorities to assess the number of new homes needed.
The NAO says this has weaknesses.

It says these weaknesses will result in a cut in the number of planned new homes in five of nine regions, while in London, the method will mean that new builds need to double in order to meet what the department thinks is needed.
The Local Government Association (LGA) said the current formula did not take into account the needs of local communities.

‘Free-for-all’

Local authorities – by law – need to have an up-to-date plan for building new homes.

If they are unable to prove that they have a five-year supply of land for housing, developers have greater freedoms to build where they want.

The NAO points out that this risks ill-suited developments, while the LGA says it risks a “free-for-all”.

The NAO says that between 2005-06 and 2017-18, 177,000 new homes per year were built on average, with the number never rising above 224,000.

To meet its ambition for 300,000 homes a year, the department will need to oversee a 69% increase in the average number of new homes built.

The NAO recommends the housing department should regularly monitor the gap between its ambition for 300,000 new homes and what is being planned.

It also says it needs to work with local authorities and other government departments to ensure that infrastructure is delivered more effectively.

Amyas Morse, the head of the NAO, said: “For many years, the supply of new homes has failed to meet demand.

“From the flawed method for assessing the number of homes required, to the failure to ensure developers contribute fairly for infrastructure, it is clear the planning system is not working well.

“The government needs to take this much more seriously and ensure its new planning policies bring about the change that is needed.”

Councillor Martin Tett, the Local Government Association’s Housing spokesman, said: “We remain clear that the government’s housing needs formula does not take into account the complexity and unique needs of local housing markets, which vary significantly from place to place.”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47157413

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 Jan 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, Local Plan, Neighbourhood Plans, NPPF

“An open letter on Permitted Development Rights”

This open letter on permitted development rights was sent to the Secretary of State for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on 21 January 2019 and published on 28 January 2019.

“Dear Secretary of State,

Re: An open letter on Permitted Development Rights

Latest Shelter research shows that in England today, there are more than 270,000 people without a home. At the heart of the reasons for this is the simple fact that for a generation we have failed to build the homes the country needs.

In addressing this, however, it is important to think not only about the number but also the type of homes we build and where they need to be built. In particular, there is a pressing need to ensure that the homes we build are genuinely affordable. Last year we delivered just 6,463 social rent homes despite having more than 1.2 million households on council house waiting lists. These statistics begin to underline the scale of the crisis we face and the level of ambition we need to resolve it.

As well as increasing the focus on affordability, new housing development should also provide homes that are high quality, well designed, and served by the necessary community infrastructure.

These ambitions are currently in jeopardy, because of national policies that enable developers to avoid making such vital contributions. One of the most significant of these is permitted development rights allowing offices to convert to residential homes without the need for planning permission.

Since 2013, developers have had a national right to convert office space into residential homes, a right they have wholly embraced with nearly seven per cent of new homes provided in this way in the last three years. Unfortunately, because they are exempt from the full local planning process, they come forward with minimal scrutiny and outside of local authority control.

These homes are also delivered without making any contribution towards affordable housing, which other forms of developments are required to do. This means that we are losing out on thousands of affordable homes which would be delivered if these homes went through the planning system.

Separate research by both the LGA and Shelter has shown the scale of this loss. Both organisations have calculated that more than 10,000 affordable homes have potentially been lost in the last three years.

The result of this is that thousands of families remain in temporary accommodation and on council house waiting lists for years, despite levels of housebuilding rising – underlining that we need to think more about what we build as well as how many homes we build.

Permitted development rights have caused extensive problems. Therefore, we consider that the current proposals to allow for demolition of existing buildings and replacement with new residential ones, and for upwards extensions to existing buildings for new homes through a permitted development right, should not be pursued.

We call on the government to instead focus on delivering the affordable, high quality homes that people want and need through the local planning process. This would support the government’s own ambitions to improve the quality of homes and places, as outlined in the terms of reference of the ‘Building Better, Building Beautiful’ commission launched in November.

We also consider that there should be an independent review of the wide-ranging impacts of permitted development rights allowing change of use into residential homes.”

Yours sincerely
18 individuals or organisations – see below for link:

https://www.local.gov.uk/open-letter-permitted-development-rights

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

23 Nov 2018

Posted under

Accountability, EDDC, Greendale, Lobbying, NPPF

Owners of Greendale object to planning conditions!

FWS Carter and Sons, the owners of Greendale Business Park, have asked East Devon District Council to reconsider two planning applications which were approved in Oct by the Development Management Committee. 17/2430/MFUL and 18/0920/FUL both being applications for Agricultural Buildings.

They are asking the Council to remove the suggested legal agreements to secure a non-alienation clause preventing their sale or letting to another party and requiring the buildings to remain in agricultural use.

The legal agreement was suggested by the District Councils Legal representative as an alternative way of ensuring that the buildings are used only for the agricultural and not converted to employment or industrial units in the future.

Councillors were concerned due to the previous history of unauthorised conversions of agricultural buildings to employment units at Hogsbrook Farm by the owners.

Since the application was agreed the owners have held meetings with the Legal Dept at EDDC claiming the legal agreements are “unnecessary and unreasonable”.

FWS Carter and Sons also consider the imposing the legal clause jeopardises the farm’s financing arrangements, restrict succession planning, prevent certain corporate organisations and unduly restricts the business in an uncertain economic climate.

The applicant is reported to have discussed the legal agreement with their bank lender to ascertain their position. The report claims the bank manager who has been a specialist agricultural lender since 1995 cannot recall a Legal 106 Agreement ever having been applied to a farm building before. The lender further noted that a S106 agreement could restrict the bank’s flexibility to enforce against its security and could reduce the value of the security. This would impact the bank’s lending on both the proposed buildings and the land.

There is a long history in relation to Agricultural units at both Greendale Business Park and now at nearby Hogsbrook Farm. There have been over 10 previous applications over a 30-year period by the applicant that due to the agricultural units not being commercially viable and therefore redundant or not being suitable they have applied for a change of use to industrial use. This has resulted in the continual growth from a farm holding to a large Business Park which is in the open countryside.

Previous attempts to curb this practice have failed following a Government Inspector overturning a previous planning refusal even when the agricultural unit had a planning condition attached to the planning approval only 10 years previously that if the agricultural use was no longer needed the unit was required to be removed.

The Planning Report states:

“The planning system has enough protection in terms of the use of the building to ensure that any new use would be assessed against planning policy, regardless of whether a section 106 was in place and it is considered that a non-alienation clause secured through a legal agreement is not now required.”

The report recommends to the Committee to support the applications without the need for a section 106 agreement.

Local Residents are concerned that the recent expansion at Hogsbrook Farm will eventually become a further Industrial Area just like Greendale Business Park did.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

7 Nov 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Housing (local), Land banking, Land Supply, NPPF, Planning System, Spin

Housing minister threatens councils on housing numbers – NOT developers!

The Express headline is:

‘Make their EYES water!’ Housing minister WARNING to councils who FAIL to meet targets

and the article goes on to blame councils for low housing numbers rather than developers who are hoarding hundreds of thousands of planning permissions, trickling out completions to keep house prices artificially high.

Message to Minister: stop shooting own foot, stop shooting councils, start squeezing developers till THEIR pips squeak!

Oh, and that bit about “developers starting on site” within two years. Legally, all they have to do is put in minimal foundations then they can leave the site unbuilt for as long as they want.

“Kit Malthouse MP was speaking to Nick Ferrari on national radio this morning to explain how the Tories are intending to “up the ante” for both developers and council planning teams so as to roll out new housing.

Mr Malthouse cited the introduction of a new scheme, the ‘Housing Delivery Test’, as one way in which the government’s building objectives might be more effectively met.

He said councils “have to hit a certain percentage of the forecast housing in their plan, and if they don’t we essentially take it out of their hands.

“If they drop below 85 percent of delivery they have to use an action plan, but if they drop below 25 percent delivery the government takes it out of their hands and they lose the ability to control a certain amount of housing in their area.”

“We want them to issue two year planning permissions, not three or five years, and if the developer doesn’t start on site within the two years that they’re able to say ‘your site’s out now’.

“You only have to do it once or twice for the development community to realise that we’re serious about this.”

The Minister explained that the Tories would give developers “big tools” to compel them to develop.

He concluded: “We’re putting big pressure on local authorities, big pressure on developers to come together.

“I do feel sometimes a bit like a marriage guidance councillor between the two because they do all shout at each other and point across the table at events that I’m at.”

Ministers say they will build 300,000 new homes a year, considerably up on the current build rate and more than in any year since the 1960s.

But a survey for the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) found that only 12 percent of members expressed any confidence in that number of new homes being delivered.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

14 Sep 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, Neighbourhood Plans, NPPF, Planning System

How neighbourhood plans died

Concluding paragraph of the article:

“The new Framework introduces a two-tier hierarchy of policies: strategic and non-strategic. Strategic policies may be contained in either a development plan or a spatial development strategy made by combined authorities and mayoral combined authorities. The National Planning Policy Guidance still states that “A neighbourhood plan attains the same legal status as the Local Plan once it has been approved at a referendum.” [15] but such plans are now in fact doomed to occupy a permanent state of permanent relegation in the second tier of this new planning policy hierarchy.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=36521%3Areflections-on-the-revised-nppf&catid=63&Itemid=31

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

13 Aug 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, AONB, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Housing (local), Inequality, Land Supply, NPPF, Planning System

A useful critique on new planning regulations (local councils stay silent on their views)

Why CPRE thinks it is a developers’ charter (again):

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/new-planning-policy-framework-slammed-1892197

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

8 Aug 2018

Posted under

Cranbrook, EDDC, Exeter City Council, Greater Exeter, NPPF, Planning System

EDDC objects to new Exeter shopping centre in Cranbrook’s back yard!

Makes a change to see EDDC objecting to anything that developers want – but in this case they do NOT want the Exeter City Council-led Moor View shopping centre in Cranbrook’s back yard!

And how many times have we pleaded for impact assessments and sequential tests on developments in East Devon, only to be told they are not required! Boot now on other foot!

Officer comments on the proposed development which Exeter City Council officers are recommending although it goes against their own Local Plan.

“East Devon New Community Partners (Cranbrook developers) Objects

The applicants have stated that one of the purposes of the development is to provide retail facilities for new business and residential communities, some of which are in East Devon.

However, these developments have been designed with their own centres/ancillary facilities, which represent the most sustainable solution to meeting the needs of people living and working in the area and the proposal could undermine the viability and deliverability of these.

The Moor Exchange development should not be seen as being in any way necessary to meet these needs.

The applicants have not carried out a sequential test or impact assessment of the proposal on Cranbrook Town Centre.

This is contrary to the NPPF and PPG.

Land is available at Cranbrook Town Centre to meet the identified need. There is already development in the consented town centre at Cranbrook which would face competition from this development and emerging developments will also be affected.

The impact assessment should take into account existing development and development expected to come forward over the next 5 years.

The response stating that Cranbrook Town Centre is not identified as a town centre on the Local Plan proposals map is semantics – Strategy 12 refers to the provision of a town centre at Cranbrook.

It also has outline consent. It will be included on the proposals map for the forthcoming Cranbrook Plan DPD.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

6 Aug 2018

Posted under

Accountability, AONB, Developers/ Development, Inequality, Local Plan, NPPF, Planning System, Rural communities

“If we value rural Britain, we can’t build houses all over it”

“Government housing policy has lost all contact with planning Britain’s countryside. This week the Campaign for the Preservation of Rural England (CPRE) is up in arms over house-building in green belts, and over the lack of what it calls affordable housing. These are a distraction. It is planning as such that has collapsed.

The CPRE is concerned that 8,000 houses were built last year on green-belt land, or 24,000 over the past decade, and that hardly any were affordable. This has predictably raised a green light over all green belts, with developers rushing forward with applications for 460,000 new homes now in process. Already, unplanned and sprawling “toy-town” estates are spreading across the home counties, the Fens, the Somerset Levels and the Severn Valley. It has sucked development into the south-east of England, denuded town centres and put ever more pressure on transport corridors. It is the worst sort of “non-planning”.

New green belt housing applications push total to a record 460,000
The issue should not be green-belt building or affordability. All rural land is now in contention. As for affordability – usually 20% off market price – such a subsidy is always short-term, and should never be a loophole for allowing building where it would otherwise be stopped.

New houses in the countryside have intense local impact, yet they form a trivial element in the housing market, of which some 90% involves existing stock. Policy should be aimed at genuinely boosting supply. This means cutting Britain’s shocking underoccupation of existing buildings. It means help with downsizing and subletting. It means not taxing sales, as stamp duty does. It means densifying urban sites and being more flexible on building uses. Modern “green” development is in cities.

Local planning must be restored. The government claims the right to decide how many new people come to Britain. It should grant local people the same right, to control the pace and nature of settlement in their communities. New planning rules deny them that right. They dictate that, should local people fight imposed targets, they will lose any further say in the matter, allowing free rein to development. It is heads we win, tails you lose localism.

Britain’s reputation for town-and-country planning has all but evaporated over the past decade. Each change in planning rules, usually dictated by the building lobby, has drawn ever more of the countryside into speculative play. The solution does not lie in arguing over a few hundred green-belt acres and a few thousand subsidised houses. County land-use planning has to be restored. Landscape considered worthy of long-term preservation – and much of it is still outside national parks – should be “listed” for its scenic and environmental value, like conservation areas in towns. Other land could then be declared a potentially developable land bank.

Listing the landscape would replace the present fighting with proper planning. Everyone would know where they stood. Rural Britain would not, as now, be up for speculative land grab. The old mistakes would not be repeated.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/06/planning-system-uk-landscapes-listing-rural-britain

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

24 Jul 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, Development Management Committee, National Planning Policy Framework, NPPF, Planning System

New National Planning Policy Framework – effective from TODAY

Very rushed so there must be a great number of controversial changes!

Report to follow.

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/revised-national-planning-policy-framework

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 Jun 2018

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, NPPF

“Home Builders Federation criticises planning proposals”to

Oh, those poor, poor developers … less profit … that’s all this is about:

“Proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework could cause the cost of land to increase and exacerbate the housing crisis, the Home Builders Federation (HBF) has warned in a letter to the Government.

The industry body claimed that proposed changes, which would enable councils to base contributions towards affordable housing based on the existing value of land – rather than its projected sale value – would mean they would have to offer lower sums to landowners and therefore be able to build fewer homes.

A spokesman for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said that proposed changes “will mean that developers know the contributions expected of them and local communities are clear about the infrastructure they will get alongside new homes. We are currently analysing responses to the consultation and will set out next steps in due course.”

Sources: Telegraph p1, Times p1 (pay walls)

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

23 Apr 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, NPPF, Rural communities

“Building free-for-all [in new planning regulations] puts rural West at risk”

Western Morning News article, Saturday 21 April:

“Pristine protected areas of the South West could be at risk from housing developments plans, a conservation charity has warned. Even officially designated Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty would face developments due to “vague” proposed new planning guidance for local authorities the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) says.

The Government argues that the new rules, part of a move to open up land to solve the housing shortage, would still protect the environment.
However Justin Hague of the South Hams CPRE, said “this would be game over” for conservationists.

Some of the south West’s pristine and most beautiful landscapes could have houses built on them under Government plans conservationists have warned.

The Campaign to Protect Rural England says even officially designated Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty would face major development due to the “vague” new planning guidance for local authorities.

The proposals- which are being consulted on until May 10 – would end the fight to preserve the precious areas, said the chairman of the group in one of the most under-pressure parts of the regain.

“Not to sound too dramatic, but for countryside campaigners it would be game over” said Justin Hague, chairman of the South Hams branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England. (CPRE)

Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) would be handed “on a plate to the developers”

He is urging people to write to their MPs to build opposition to the proposed changes.

The controversy is over sections of the National Policy Planning Framework (NPPF) which sets out the Government`s Policies on proposed developments and how they are expected to be applied.

Changes are being but forward partly to help solve the housing crisis.
The aim is to “bring forward more land in the right places” for development, the Government says “Protecting and enhancing the natural environment “ is one of the three key objectives , the document states.

However conservationists are concerned by what they say is watering down of the NPPF policies protecting special areas of the countryside and coast which were put in place in 2012.

Their attention focuses on one section of the proposals, Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment.

In the existing document, reference is made to protected areas such as National Parks and AONBs as having the “highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty.

The wording disappears under the new proposals.

Mr Hague said absolute tests that helped reinforce protection of the special areas would also go if new guidelines were agreed.

“The proposals say major developments will only be allowed in exceptional circumstances. But what is “major”? Is that 100 homes? In the South Hams in the AONB 10homes could have a huge impact.

“It massively opens the door for development in AONBs” he said.

“My concern is these proposed changes are buried in a huge document that few people have the time or interest to read.

Mr Hague said he had an “unprecedented” response since he expressed his concerns in newsletter to fellow CPRE members in the South Hams.

“Usually I get three or four responses” he said “This time I had 70!”
Mr Hague said the South Hams faced particular pressure for development because of the desire for second homes.

Developers were struggling to sell homes in less-desirable areas, even with the assistance of the Governments Help to Buy Scheme “

They would be able to sell those houses like hot cakes to second home owners if they were able to build in beautiful areas and on the coast” he said.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

12 Apr 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, Fracking, NPPF, Planning System, Sustainability

“Stampede to build homes threatens the rights of locals”

Article by Andrew Motion, President, CPRE in today’s Times (pay wall):

“In launching the revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) last month, the communities secretary Sajid Javidpromised “a continued emphasis on development that’s sustainable and led locally”. Was he really talking about the same NPPF that, for the past five years, has forced wholly unsustainable development on communities already struggling with overstretched infrastructure and shrinking green spaces?

Initial analysis of the revisions by the Campaign to Protect Rural England shows that there is still not enough emphasis on a plan-led system such as the one that has been a cornerstone of our local democracy since 1947. We are calling for the final version to give a cast-iron guarantee that locally agreed development plans (including neighbourhood plans) should be upheld when deciding planning applications. It is the only way to restore communities’ faith in neighbourhood planning.

Local volunteers spend a great deal of time and effort in promoting good development, assessing housing needs and negotiating sites that respect settlement boundaries and preserve valued green spaces. So it is deeply disheartening that the revised NPPF could allow local authorities to overrule neighbourhood plans, either when local plans are reviewed (every five years) or if not enough homes are delivered elsewhere.

Communities across England are being targeted by parasitic “land promoters” who speculate on their ability to shoehorn large, expensive homes on to greenfield sites. In many cases the financial might of these companies allows them to steamroller councils in the appeals process, where the NPPF’s current “presumption in favour of sustainable development” provides the necessary loophole.

If it’s hard to achieve democratic decisions with respect to housing, the situation threatens to become even worse with fracking. The majority of recent applications have been decisively rejected by local authorities, yet the revised NPPF forces local authorities not only to place great weight on the supposed benefits of fracking for the economy, but also to recognise the benefits for “energy security” and “supporting a low-carbon transition”. This misguided emphasis can only lead to more travesties like January’s approval for oil exploration by West Sussex county council, in the face of 2,739 letters of objection (and 11 in support).

We must have new housing and infrastructure, but it remains vitally important that development benefits those who have to live with it. Now more than ever, we need to put people at the heart of the planning system.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

15 Mar 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, Land banking, NPPF, Planning System

No overnight fix for housing say “Civic Voice”

Civic Voice is the national charity for the civic movement. It leads and supports civic societies as a national movement for quality of place, with people actively improving their towns, cities and villages and promote civic pride, speaking up for civic societies and local communities across England.

“Speaking during a meeting for Civic Societies, Civic Voice President, Griff Rhys Jones said “Whilst the Government wants to see `The right homes in the right places` the draft National Planning Policy Framework is so lacking in teeth to ensure that the policies will be delivered, and combined with under-resourced local councils, that we are very likely to end up with the wrong homes in the wrong places.”

Craig Mackinlay MP, Chair of the APPG [All Party Parliamentary Group] for Civic Societies said, “Does anyone genuinely believe that if you build more houses, house prices will come down?”.

Without knocking developers, who are part of the solution, I have to query whether they are doing all they can to help build the houses? I say to them, to get more affordable housing, we must build real affordable housing in sustainable locations where people want to live in towns and cities. If not, we have to look at other ways of building the homes we need. It is easy to think of headline figures, but we are talking about real people’s lives being impacted by the housing crisis.”

The draft National Planning Policy Framework was published on 6th March with the consultation running to 10th May. Civic Voice and the All Party Parliamentary Group for Civic Societies held a debate on 13th March to ask the question “Wil the NPPF review lead to the homes, the nation needs, being built? The panel included speakers from Royal Town Planning Institute and Campaign to Protect Rural England.

The debate highlighted issues including:

• England has not one housing market, but many. We need to be working towards having a plan-led system so that decisions are made locally as a one policy fits all approach does not work for the whole country. Context matters. We need a solution for Alnwick, Blackpool and London. And everywhere in between.
• To ensure we get plans in place, the planning system needs effective resources, particularly at local authority level, commensurate with the important role it plays. Planning is part of the solution not the problem.
• The panel supported the inquiry being led by Sir Oliver Letwin who has been charged by the Government to investigate why there is a gap between the number of planning permissions granted and the number of homes that are then built on those sites.
• It is pleasing that despite the constant attacks on the Green Belt, the draft NPPF review retains the current green belt policies. It was felt that the test for exceptional circumstances for when Green Belt can be released needs to be clarified.
• Let local authorities charge the planning fees they need to cover the costs they are spending on supporting the delivery of homes. The panel heard the example of one authority that made £500k loss on planning work in the previous year.
• The need to consider the VAT and Tax anomalies within the planning system around VAT or refurbishment. The group discussed ideas of taxation of property and how a Householder Tax could help use change and nudge behaviour.

Craig Mackinlay MP finished by saying, “We all have a role to play in finding the homes for our children and grandchildren. The APPG for Civic Societies will be holding further debates during the consultation period to raise awareness of the issues. We will then collect the findings together and meet with the Minister and share our findings about what the draft means for communities. I call on people to respond with evidence to the draft NPPF consultation and to share your thoughts with Civic Voice.”

The Next APPG for Civic Societies meeting will be on May 8th in Parliament, on the Historic Environment section of the NPPF. Civic Voice members will be sent further information to attend.”

https://civicvoice.org.uk

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

7 Mar 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Blackhill Quarry, Clinton Devon Estates, Developers/ Development, Local Plan, NPPF, Rural communities, Scrutiny, Sustainability, Woodbury

Blackill Engineering Extension – is this an excuse to drive a new industrial site into the heart of the Pebblebed Heaths?

These days most large developers pay for pre-application advice before submitting a planning application. A recent Freedom of Information request has uncovered the advice that was offered to someone (name redacted) seeking such advice on proposed business units at Blackhill Quarry, Woodbury in early October 2017.

Specifically this proposal was for the erection of AN ADDITIONAL industrial building to support the existing business, Blackhill Engineering, being operated form the site together with the erection of FIVE ADDITIONAL industrial buildings for use by other businesses.

In summary the advice given was that this would not comply with the protective policies that cover this sensitive site. A much stronger employment benefit case regarding the expansion of the existing business to justify a departure from these policies would be needed. The five speculative industrial buildings would not justify a policy departure.

On 20 December 2017, within three months of this advice, planning application 17/3022/MOUT was submitted for outline application seeking approval of access for construction of up to 3251 sqm (35,000 sq ft) of B2 (general industrial) floor space with access, parking and associated infrastructure.

The accompanying justification reads:

“There is considerable and clearly identified need for the existing business at Blackhill Engineering to expand as a result of that business having grown considerably over recent years and with its existing premises now at full capacity. The provision of additional facilities on the application site would allow the company to continue its expansion and so deliver additional economic and employment benefits to the local area…. With the winding down of the existing quarry use of the site, there is a short and fortuitous window of opportunity in which to address BESL’s growth requirements with the reuse of an area of former minerals processing site….It is a crucial part of both local and national employment strategy to protect existing businesses and to encourage their expansion. If approved, the scheme would allow the existing business not to only remain at the site but also to expand. The resulting investment will enable a substantial increase in the provision of highly skilled jobs in the area, increased training opportunities for apprentices and added value to the local economy. Furthermore, the expansion of the Blackhill Engineering will help reinforce the vitality of its parent organisation…”

So, is this application all about the needs of Blackhill Engineering to expand, having already designed flood defence gates for New York City Hospital, worked for the European Space Agency and the pier at Hinkley Point, which in October seemed to require only one building; or more about Clinton Devon Estates trying to generate rent from a new industrial park? Restoration provides no income.

For those interested here is the detailed pre-application advice, given on an informal basis and without prejudice, in about half the words:

“The extant planning permission on the site requires a restoration and aftercare scheme to be implemented following cessation of the quarrying operations. As part of this condition, alternative schemes (subject to planning permission) can be considered but two policies are of particular relevance:

East Devon Local Plan- Strategy 7 – Development in the Countryside.

This strategy states that development in the countryside “will only be permitted where it is in accordance with a specific Local or Neighbourhood Plan policy that explicitly permits such development”. In this instance, there is no local or neighbourhood plan which would permit the proposal and, therefore, it is considered that it would not comply with Strategy 7.

East Devon Local Plan- Policy E5 – Small scale Economic Development in Rural Areas.

This policy states that the expansion of existing businesses designed to provide jobs for local people will be permitted where

1. it involves the conversion of existing buildings. Or

2. if new buildings are involved, it is on previously developed land. Or

3. if on a greenfield site, shall be well related in scale and form and in sustainability terms to the village and surrounding areas.

In this instance, the Local Planning Authority recognise the previously developed nature of the site, however, in the ‘Glossary of Terms’ section of the Local Plan (which echoes those contained in the National Planning Policy Framework) previously developed land specifically excludes land that has been developed for minerals extraction or waste disposal by landfill purposes where provision for restoration has been made through development control procedures.

Accordingly, the land would be considered as greenfield.
In terms of Policy E5, as the site would not be well related in sustainability terms to Woodbury or surrounding areas, the proposal would be contrary to policy.

However, if sufficient justification can be made in terms of the needs of the existing business being operated from the site to expand into an additional building, then the economic benefits may outweigh the environmental harm, of the unsustainable location as a departure from the Local Plan.

For this purpose, an economic benefits statement would need to be submitted as part of an application.

The five speculative units being located in an unsustainable location would not be acceptable.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

6 Mar 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, NPPF, Planning System

“Law Society criticises proposed government approach to planning conditions”

“The Law Society has expressed concern that the government’s proposed new approach to planning conditions was “overly prescriptive and risked generating more appeals as a result of refusal or non-determination of planning applications”.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s consultation on draft regulations intended to improve the use of planning conditions ran until 27 February.

It invited comments on draft regulations which create an exemption to the requirement in the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 that local planning authorities obtain the written agreement of an applicant before imposing a pre-commencement condition on a grant of planning permission.

In its response Chancery Lane’s Planning & Environmental Law Committee said the generation of more appeals was an outcome that “would defeat the object of the exercise”.

The Committee went on to propose alternative approaches to meet the government’s objectives.

The Committee’s response, which can be downloaded here, was as follows:

Q1: Do you agree that the notice should require the local planning authority to give full reasons for the proposed condition and full reasons for making it a pre-commencement condition?
We agree with the requirement to give reasons for proposed conditions but are concerned that the meaning of “full reasons” is undefined (and is not defined in S100ZA of the 1990 Act) and could thus lead to litigation in the same manner as happened with “summary reasons”.
It may be preferable to apply the recently affirmed standard for reasons in the Dover case(1) – “proper, adequate and intelligible”, also per South Bucks(2) many years before.
(1) Dover District Council v CPRE Kent; CPRE Kent v China Gateway International Ltd [2017] UKSC 79
(2) South Buckinghamshire District Council v Porter (No 2) [2004] 1 WLR 1953

Q2: Do you agree with our proposed definition of “substantive response” set out in draft Regulation 2(6)?
A developer veto without reasons is also unlikely to help achieve government’s goals if it increases the number of non-determinations and thus appeals. Furthermore, the Planning Inspectorate may find it unnecessarily difficult to deal promptly with such appeals if the developer’s reasoning for bringing them is not known at the outset.
We suggest that developers should be expected to give “proper, adequate and intelligible” reasons for refusing a condition, just as planning authorities should do for proposing them.

Q3: Do you agree with our proposal not to give local planning authorities discretion to agree with applicants a longer period than 10 working days to respond to the notice?
We propose that planning authorities should have discretion to allow a longer response time where this facilitates an agreed position during the notice period. Given that a longer notice period can benefit an applicant there shouldn’t be negative consequences from the additional “delay”.
If a limitation is sought, the regulations could emulate recent changes in Environmental Impact Assessment by permitting extension by agreement up to a maximum (90 days for EIA).

Q4: Do you have any other comments on the draft regulations?
While commending their brevity and clarity, we have concerns that the regulations as proposed are overly prescriptive and could lead to unnecessary increases in appeals – thus defeating their original object. We hope that our proposed amendments offer constructive solutions and would be happy to assist the Ministry further.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=34464%3Alaw-society-criticises-proposed-government-approach-to-planning-conditions&catid=63&Itemid=31

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

5 Mar 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, NPPF, Planning System

Do you want to tell the government what you think of the National Planning Policy Framework?

Well, you can – until 10 May 2018:

“… Alongside the National Planning Policy Framework consultation documents, we have published for reference the draft planning practice guidance on viability and the housing delivery test measurement rulebook. We will publish additional draft planning practice guidance for reference later this week. …”

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/draft-revised-national-planning-policy-framework

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

5 Mar 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Conflict of interest, Developers/ Development, NPPF, Planning System

Housing minister who attacked NIMBYs is a NIMBY – or maybe a BANANA!

Sajid Javid has attacked councils and NIMBYs for standing in the way of more housing.

Now, it seems Javid is even worse – a BANANA – Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone!

“…1) Just months before his re-election in 2015, Javid slammed plans from his local Tory Council, Redditch Borough, to build 2,800 new homes. He said:

“…..I wish to re-emphasise my concern that land within Redditch Borough is fully utilised before any consideration is given to expanding the area’s housing need into Bromsgrove Green Belt as a neighbouring district.”
Ah, the green belt, of course. Javid is a man of principle, let us not forget.

2) In June 2016, Javid slammed his local council’s plans to build 1,300 houses in Perryfields:

“While I understand this land was designated for housing, there is significant concern about the implications such a large-scale development would have on local infrastructure, facilities and environment.”
Aaaah, it all makes sense now: Javid cares about providing sustainable housing. Makes perfect sense:

3) In 2012, Javid backed another campaign against plans to build 175 homes in the Worcestershire village of Hagley. At the time, he said:

“People aren’t against it just for the sake of being against the development, it’s can the local infrastructure cope?”
Hmm, a theme seems to be emerging. Surely Javid was again rallying to defend the green belt, no? Well, no. The council head of planning Ruth Bamford responded to Javid’s NIMBYism by pointing out: “If it didn’t go here it would most likely go on greenbelt because there isn’t much land around Bromsgrove district that can take new housing.”

Slippery Javid just keeps on passing the buck #NIMBYpamby.”

https://politicalscrapbook.net/2018/03/housing-hypocrite-sajid-javid-fought-plans-for-4200-homes-in-own-backyard/