Category Archives: NPPF
Eric Pickles seeks technical consultation on planning
Some of us may feel we know almost as much, or more, about the technical aspects of planning than do many of our officers and councillors!
It is worth reading just for the comments om town centre parking alone and is also useful about changes that could be made to Environmental Impact Assessments and improving the NPPF:
Musings on the damage being done to the countryside by the National Planning Policy Framework
A thoughtful article in today’s Western Morning News:
Perhaps if we re-designated our green fields as “green manufacturing industries” and our tourist industry as “coastal and rural economic growth generators” we might get some people to understand why they are so important.
As both our local MPs are “hunting, shooting, fishing” men perhaps they could weigh in on our behalf?
Let’s hope none of our rash of new homes have these problems
“Families are increasingly being forced to squeeze into smaller spaces, with many children forced to share a bedroom and many new homes not having a garden or adequate storage space.”
Though we have heard of at least one local model house that had to have fitted wardrobes inserted in bedrooms during the early part of the build because not even flat packs will go up the stairs!
Another developer’s appeal refused in an AONB despite no Local Plan
… “The inspector also concurred that the fields formed part of the setting for the area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB) celebrated in Laurie Lee’s memoir Cider with Rosie, and was therefore valued landscape that the government’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) should protect.
As in many areas the lack of a local plan had left the land exposed under the NPPF’s presumption in favour of sustainable development. Yet the inspector’s decision establishes that land can be a valued landscape even without official designation, and that the lack of a local plan for meeting housing targets did not necessarily undermine the protection that our countryside merits.”
CoVoP members will attend discussion forum as part of Parliamentary enquiry into NPPF
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/
NIMBYs have had their day – further reflections
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!
A response to “NIMBYs have had their day”
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
“NIMBYs have had their day” says new planning minister
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/
A little note for the Development Management Committee
Just in case the Development Management Committee tries again to say that planning applications must be decided in 8 weeks (as it did when it rushed through the enormous Pinhoe development a little while ago) here is the definitive statement on this matter:
“Under the revised criteria, where 40% or fewer major planning applications are determined within the statutory time frame during the two-year assessment period, the LPA will be regarded as under-performing. The statutory determination period of 13 weeks must be adhered to, unless the application has involved the need for an Environmental Impact Assessment (where 16 weeks is the alternative) or any extended period was previously agreed with the applicant. There will be a limited exemption for LPAs that have decided only two major applications during the 24-month assessment period. “
News from COVOP (Community Voice on Planning)
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.
CPRE launches campaign to identify brownfield sites
The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) has issued this appeal: “To help us find out how much brownfield land is available and where it is, we are launching the #WasteOfSpace campaign to raise awareness of the ‘brownfield first’ solution.
Please help us by nominating brownfield sites in your area that could be suitable for housing development in the future.
You can add your nomination to the interactive map by:
sending an email to wasteofspace@cpre.org.uk
tweeting @CPRE with the hashtag #WasteOfSpace
posting to Facebook #WasteOfSpace
All we need from you is an image of the site (as simple as a quick snap on your smartphone) and an address of the site including the postcode and street address. Just send us this and we will do the rest.
Our aim is to upload each nomination to our #WasteOfSpace map the same day it is submitted (or the next Monday if submitted at the weekend). So make sure you keep an eye out for your #WasteOfSpace nomination on the map so you can share it with your friends and family on Facebook and Twitter once it is published.”
http://www.cpre.org.uk/how-you-can-help/take-action/waste-of-space
Boles moved in Cabinet reshuffle
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.
“Parish Pulse” survey
Community Rights: Parish Pulse Survey 2014 Launched
Published 14th July 2014
The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) is conducting a short informal survey – ‘Parish Pulse 2014’.
“Last spring DCLG conducted a survey to learn more about how town and parish councils were embracing Community Rights to empower their neighbourhoods to take action and to influence local services. Over 870 councils completed the survey, which provided Government with a valuable insight into the take-up of Community Rights and an understanding of how it could support more town and parish councils to encourage them to make better use of the rights.
The aim of the ‘Parish Pulse Survey 2014’ is to find out what the picture looks like now for town and parish councils with Community Rights.
DCLG wants you to tell them about what activity your town or parish council is taking forward to support Neighbourhood Planning, Community Right to Challenge and Community Right to Bid & Asset Support. The outcomes will help to inform the continuing development of Government’s work with town and parishes and shape the type of support we provide to respond to the issues highlighted in the survey.
The survey includes a short series of questions and will only take 10 – 15 minutes to complete. The survey is open until 11 August 2014.”
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/parishpulse2014
One would imagine that residents of most of our towns and parishes would have a lot to say!
Source:
http://www.slcc.co.uk/news-item/community-rights-parish-pulse-survey-2014-launched/799/
Civil servant’s holiday allows Neighbourhood Plan bungle allowing development without challenge
“It emerged an internal email from Mr Pickles’ office in Whitehall to his regional department in Bristol was missed because its receiver was on holiday – and that ultimately allowed a controversial development in north Wiltshire to go ahead.
The Appeal Court ruled the missed email ‘calling-in’ the controversial development meant building work had to go ahead – and now local politicians are saying the decision to allow the development undermines all communities trying to control development with Neighbourhood Plans.”
NPPF: it IS broke but they don’t i tend to fix it
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
Landscape more important than solar farms
“Campaigners in Devon are claiming victory after plans for a solar farm were thrown out.
The council decision to reject the 45 acre solar farm near Tiverton was backed by a government inspector.
Planning inspector Brian Cook ruled the scheme would have “fundamentally changed the appearance and character of the landscape”.
He criticised Mid-Devon District Council over the way it handled the planning case.
He said there was “unreasonable behaviour, resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense”.”
EDA founder-member nominated as a Trustee of national campaign group
Congratulations to Mike Temple of the Sidmouth branch of East Devon Alliance, who has recently become one of the first Trustees of the Community Voice on Planning (CoVoP), who are vigorously working for changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
The following update on progress at the national level has just been received by CoVoP secretary, Julie Mabberley:
We are trying to keep up the pressure on the policital parties prior to the election next year. To that end
we are attending a meeting with Greg Mulholland and his colleagues this week to work on a manifesto
put together by a range of campaigners who share a similar vision for the future of the planning system.
The attendees include: Greg Mulholland MP (LD, Leeds North West); Philip Davies MP (C, Shipley); Fiona
Bruce MP (L, Congleton), Sir Nick Harvey MP (LD, North Devon); Alok Sharma MP (C, Reading West);
David Ingham (Wharfdale & Airedale Review Development); Ian Harvey & Freddie Gick (Civic Voice); Paul
Minor (CPRE); Duncan McCallum (English Heritage); Adam Royle (NT); Paul Adams and Julie Mabberley
(CoVoP).
In common with many of the affiliated groups we have been invited to to attend a discussion forum with
Committee MPs at 3.30pm on Monday 1 September at Portcullis House, Westminster for the NPPF inquiry.
This may be an opportunity to get a number of our members together face to face anyway. There may
even be sufficient a number of groups on the same day to hold a rally but I guess that only one person
from each group will be invited.
We are also in communication with the MPs Interest Group on the Green Belt led by Chris
Skidmore MP.
Our next get-together and Trustees meeting will take place at the Navigation Inn, Barrow Upon Soar,
Loughborough, LE12 8LQ on Sunday 10 August. Please let me know if you want to send a
representative. We will be discussing the outcomes from the meeting this week and the preparation for
the NPPF Inquiry discussion forum as well as other actions to put pressure on the main political parties.
On the subject of Trustees – we have now set up The Community Voice on Planning on the Small Charity
Constitution basis managed by Trustees. The first Trustees are
– Paul Adams (DefeND [Defend North Devon])
– Geoff Rice (Wantage and Grove Campaign Group)
– Jenny Unsworth (Protect Congleton)
– Ron Morton (Save our Green Spaces)
– Julie Mabberley (Wantage and Grove Campaign Group).
– Mike Temple (Save our Sidmouth).
Our Constitution is available at http://covop.org/constitution/ and we would like to formally invite all groups
to nominate individuals for membership now and to nominate Trustees at the AGM which will be held
early next year.
Thanks for reading.
Julie
Community Voice on Planning
A National Alliance to provide communities with an effective voice on planning.
“NPPF fails to make a significant impact” on the percentage of planning permissions granted in the last two years
The National Planning Policy Framework has “failed to make a significant impact” on the percentage of planning permissions granted by local authorities in the two years since its introduction, according to new research.
Analysis of more than 1.7m planning applications and 16,000 appeals over four years by planning consultancy Turley shows approvals and rejections have remained broadly the same at 80 per cent and 20 per cent. There has, however, been a significant increase in the success of some types of planning appeals, with rates for public inquiries climbing by as much as 50 per cent since the introduction of the NPPF. There has only been a modest increase in successful appeals by hearing and no change in those through written representations.
Rob Peters, executive director at Turley, said: “There are a range of factors that can influence planning outcomes and the decision to approve or refuse applications is not solely related to national policy. However, it is a reasonable assumption that the combination of less guidance and a strong presumption in favour of sustainable development would result in more planning applications being approved. This has not been the case.”
He added that the variations in the success of different forms of planning appeals could be partly explained by “the failure of local authorities to formulate and adopt local plans to the timescale envisaged in the NPPF”. “To date, the Planning Inspectorate reports that just 14.6 per cent of development plans have been found sound and adopted since the NPPF was published,” Peters said.
“Given the importance of having an up-to-date local plan, especially one that deals with an area’s objectively assessed housing needs and the duty to cooperate with adjoining authorities, it is perhaps not surprising that major residential schemes are enjoying greater success at appeal.”
http://www.localgovernmentexecutive.co.uk/news/nppf-has-little-impact-planning-approvals
So, one has to ask, what was the NPPF actually FOR and how come it has made a very significant impact in East Devon yet not elsewhere.
Now, that reminds us – the East Devon Business Forum Task and Finish Group …
East Devon Watch 